I move as an unopposed motion—

Mr. Speaker, because the late Mr. Bennett was still with us here last week and took part in the proceedings of the House up to the end of the week, the unexpected news of his death, when it reached us yesterday, came as a particularly great shock to all of us. He was elected on 23rd October, 1964, after the death of the late Mr. Tom Bowker, his popular predecessor. He very soon found his feet in this House. He came from the same stock as his predecessor; he displayed the same interests as his predecessor and in many ways he had the same friendly nature as his predecessor, the late Mr. Bowker, and humanly speaking one would have thought that there were still many years of service in this House in store for him. He was, in fact, a relatively young man, and now, at the age of fifty years, he has departed from this House.

He came from the farming community of the Eastern Cape, and naturally his primary and main interest lay in farming. He spoke with fervour and conviction about those matters in this House and put his case with conviction in that connection. He was a friendly and pleasant colleague. We who knew him found it easy to get on with him. We were on very amicable terms with him.

If it came as such a shock to us as members to hear of his sudden death, one can well imagine what a shock it must have been for his wife, his two sons and his daughter. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to convey our sincere sympathy to his wife and children in this way. Our prayer is that she will be granted great strength and solace by the Almighty in these days.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House wish to be associated with the kind words that have fallen from the hon. the Prime Minister concerning our late colleague. Colin Bennett was a young man, comparatively speaking, who had made very rapid progress during the period that he had been in this House. He had a very distinguished career. He was a Rhodes scholar for his school. He went up to Oxford University before the war. He gained a distinction in Law Moderations before war broke out and he saw fit to offer his services to his country. He was a bomber pilot for five years, seeing service in what was known as the hot spots in Malta, in Sicily and also in Italy. After the war he continued his studies and gained for himself a degree in agriculture at Oxford University.

I think if there was one characteristic of his life it was service. He gave service to his fellows at school and that is why he became a Rhodes scholar. He gave service to his country during the war, and after the war the long list of posts he held and societies he served gives evidence of his dedication. He was president of the Eastern Agricultural Union; he was on the executive of the Cape Province Agricultural Union; he was on the executive of the South Eastern Areas Public Bodies Association; he was on the council of Rhodes University at Grahamstown where he was a most distinguished member.

I believe Sir that he was a most approachable person most dedicated and perhaps too inclined to over-exert himself in the interests of his constituents and his work for his country. I believe that he will be sadly missed by his many friends and admirers, who recognized him as a fine gentleman and a real patriot. I think not only Parliament but South Africa has suffered a loss as the result of his passing at this early age. Our very special sympathy goes out to his wife and children in these tragic circumstances. I second the motion.

Motion agreed to unanimously, all the members standing.

Mr. Chairman, on this clause I wish to state briefly our attitude towards this Bill. We made our position quite clear at the Second Reading. We feel that there should be a thorough examination of the incidence of Bantu taxation, the different forms of taxation, the ability of the Bantu to pay taxes, and the most effective method of the collecting of taxes. All these matters should be inquired into before a radical Bill of this nature is introduced. This Bill has the effect of introducing a new principle of dissociating the Bantu from the other groups in regard to direct taxation but like all the other citizens he remains liable to indirect taxation. We do not see how we can amend the clauses of this Bill satisfactorily without hearing from the interested bodies how they would be affected. The Deputy Minister himself has admitted that this Bill will not solve all problems connected with Bantu taxation. There will be different taxes collected in different ways. The basic general tax of R2.50 will have to be paid in a lump sum. The general income-tax will be collected on the P.A.Y.E. system and also directly from provisional payers. The tribal levy will be collected directly. Arrears will be collected in different ways and provision for all these methods of collection of tax is made in this Bill. I want to shorten the Committee Stage; that is why I am dealing with this now.

We know, Sir, that the employers have misgivings and interviewed the Department. The Minister has not told us what their problems and difficulties are, or how he aims to meet them. The Franzsen Commission reported generally on taxation, but did not deal with Bantu taxation. We shall vote against the main clause, clause 6, but shall allow the other clauses to go through without debate.

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that basically I agree with the line of action which the hon. member for Transkei has set out at the beginning of the Committee Stage of this Bill, for the Official Opposition. I know its going to be impossible to discuss the principles of this Bill when we come to the clauses containing these principles. I shall say a few words on those clauses, Sir, with your permission, and I, too, will simply have to satisfy myself with voting against clause 6, which is the main clause in this Bill. I shall also say something on two or three of the other clauses that I consider to be the most important clauses in this Bill.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, this is the clause which sets out the schedule of taxation. When the tax was introduced in 1958, the Deputy Minister will remember that we opposed it then.

There have been arguments put up by members on the Government side in the Second-Reading debate that the Opposition should support this Bill, because it in fact reduces the taxation on the Bantu, especially on the lower income groups. Well, Sir, the Minister nods his head. It does so in the following way. If one considers that the basic general tax has been reduced in this clause from R3.50 to R2.50 it means a reduction of R1. But if one looks at the schedule, one will see that where the taxable income exceeds R360, but not R480, the taxpayer will pay R1.20. Under the old tax he paid 50 cents. Therefore, he is now going to pay 70 cents more. But with the reduction of R1 in basic tax, he receives a benefit of 25 cents.

It is 30 cents.

Oh, yes. The next group, with a taxable income of between R480 and R600, paid R2, and will now pay R2.67.

To which amount are you referring?

I am referring to the second group, between R480 to R600. He pays 56 cents more, but he receives the benefit of the reduction of R1. So it goes on. I am not going right through the schedule. I ask, of what benefit is that reduction of 30 cents and 24 cents per year, which hon. members say gives us a reason why we should accept this Bill, when we bear in mind that the Bantu will now, together with all other citizens, have to pay the purchase tax, which affects every purchase he makes, except for his food? We say that the gain for the poorer Bantu is nothing at all. In fact, under taxation introduced this year in Parliament he is going to pay much more. It is impossible for us to move any amendment to the schedule, because we cannot amend any portion of it without upsetting the balance of the rest of the schedule. Without all the facts that we want before us, as we asked in the Second-Reading debate, as to how this taxation compares in fact with the tax paid by the other groups, we cannot come to an equitable solution. We know that in this schedule, in terms of this Bill, there is no reduction. There is no rebate for the Bantu. There is no deduction made from his tax as was allowed to other groups. It is quite unfair to look at these figures as they appear here and to say that because they are lower than the figures in the schedule of the Income Tax Act applicable to other groups, the Bantu is now paying less tax. Sir, we are going to vote against this clause because this is the fundamental clause of this legislation.

During the Second Reading debate I think I made it quite clear that this clause contained the fundamental principle of this legislation. I object to the differentiation there is between the taxation on Whites, Coloureds and Indians, on the one hand, and Africans on the other hand. Despite the fact that the principle was adopted when the Bill was read a Second Time I think you, Mr. Chairman, will allow me to say a few words about the level at which this differentiation begins. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister once again that he should consider starting the taxable income on the fourth level, mentioned in his schedule on page 10 of the Bill—that is to say, he should not start taxable income at a level of R360 per annum but rather at R720 per annum. I ask this for two reasons. First of all, this would make it more equitable when one considers it vis-à-vis the income tax scale applicable to other racial groups, in terms of which income tax for married people only starts at over R1,000 per annum and even higher when rebates are taken into consideration.

The point I made yesterday was that the vast majority of Africans in South Africa earn an income of less than R1,000 per annum. Urban surveys have shown that about 20 per cent earn salaries of between R75 and R100 per month and 20 per cent over R100 per month. Many, therefore, live on incomes below this, below the poverty datum line—certainly Africans in the rural areas, both in the reserves and on white farms. The vast majority of these earn far less even if one takes into consideration also their income in natura. One must take into consideration that no rebates are allowed in the form of children’s allowances, etc. On these grounds this Bill is more burdensome than would appear at first sight. Therefore, I ask the hon. the Minister to take into consideration these facts and seriously consider amending this Bill to start the taxable income at the fourth rung, i.e. at an income of R720 per annum.

The hon. member for Houghton is asking me now to relinquish the tax on incomes of less than R720 per year. I do not see my way clear to doing this. Yesterday afternoon in my Second Reading speech I explained why we were starting at the same amount as before. The hon. member complains about “hardships”; she complains about the increasing cost of living. However, she must not lose sight of the fact that the increased cost of living was accompanied by increased wages. The tax on an income of R360 is only R1.20 per year, or 10 cents per month. Surely the hon. member cannot say that this is going to cause “hardship”. As a matter of fact, without being cynical, one may say that this is equivalent to the cost of only one of the mugs of beer they drink on an afternoon. That is the only difference this is going to make. I therefore believe it will be very easy for them to pay this 10 cents and I cannot relinquish this tax, particularly not if I aim to collect another R11 million in tax. I dealt with other aspects of this matter at the Second Reading.

The hon. member for Transkei also complained about these scales and asked whether there was any reason for saying that relief was being granted in this respect. I did not claim that considerable relief was being granted here. However, minor concessions are being made here and there. What is really behind this legislation, is that if a P.A.Y.E. system of tax is required, and if such a system makes it easier for people to pay their tax and at the same time ensures that taxes are, in fact, collected, such a system has to be made applicable to the Bantu as well. I am not saying that this measure is perfect. These scales were drawn up with a certain amount of tax in mind. At the same time the scales were calculated in such a way that the Bantu would be able to pay the tax as laid down by these scales. I am as unwilling to relinquish these scales as the hon. member for Transkei is prepared to accept them.

Was any attempt made to equate this schedule here with the schedule of taxes payable by the other groups under the Income Tax Act?

Yes, that was taken into account. However, there are also other factors included in this. After all, the hon. member knows that different scales laid down in terms of the 1925 legislation, as amended in 1958, scales which did not keep pace with the scales of income tax which change from year to year either. As I stated at the Second Reading yesterday afternoon, this is a system of taxation which was worked out for the Bantu, a scale according to which, in our opinion, the Bantu would be able to pay income tax without his being inconvenienced in any way. When taking the comparison further to the scales for the higher incomes, we find that Bantu persons will have to pay more income tax than the Whites. However, as far as the latter is concerned, we must keep in mind that Whites have to pay provincial tax, amounting to approximately one-third of the income tax, over and above their income tax. Moreover, they have to pay loan levies as well. The Bantu do not pay any loan levies. Considering all these factors, as well as the small amount of hut tax which has to be paid, compared with house rent in general, I can see no justification for relinquishing these scales. As a matter of fact, these scales still compare favourably with those according to which the other groups pay income tax.

Clause put and the Committee divided.

Ayes—107: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Lewis, H. M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J. Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—35: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M. Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 13:

I just want to repeat to the hon. the Deputy Minister the plea that I made to him yesterday to be generous under the powers given to him in subsection (3) (a) in allowing exemptions from this tax. There are large numbers of people other than people who are indigent or prevented by reasons of age or disease from earning sufficient to enable them to pay tax, who are deserving of the hon. the Minister’s charity, and I hope that he will give this very serious consideration when he frames the regulations under which these exemptions are allowed in a later clause of the Bill. I mentioned yesterday particularly the number of women with dependant children who do not have husbands to support them, and I am not referring only to widows, although these are certainly worthy of the hon. the Minister’s consideration, but also all those women who for causes not within their control really—because it is the migratory system which leads to such a high percentage of illegitimacy in this country among African women—are unable to pay tax. The hon. the Minister may find it difficult to give children’s allowances per se, for obvious reasons, but there should be no difficulty in giving tax exemption to women who are unable to support their dependant children. A large number of women earn more than R360 per annum and therefore fall within the purview of the Act, and I put this to the hon. the Minister for his consideration.

The hon. member for Houghton should not expect us to come forward with an impossible system of taxation under which children can also be taken into consideration for the purposes of tax deductions, because that would result in the very thing I am trying to prevent by means of this legislation, i.e. that employers would have to deduct taxes according to various scales. Under this Bill we have one scale, one schedule, which is going to make it very easy for employers to make deductions, and we should not like to deviate from it. It will place the employer in an impossible position if he has to ascertain from the Bantu woman whether she is legally married to the man who is the father of her six children, or whether she is simply living with him, or whether her children have different fathers. It is impossible for the employer to ascertain all these things. I want to say to the hon. member, as I said yesterday, that we shall act in a humane way under subsection (3) (a) as far as the fixed amount of the local tax is concerned. My department is known for its humane treatment of the Bantu, and we shall treat these people in a humane way. But as far as the income tax as such is concerned, very sound reasons will have to be advanced before the Secretary will grant exemptions from tax. The hon. member may rest assured that we shall implement this legislation in a humane way.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 14:

I want to say a word or two about this clause. I wonder whether the Deputy Minister will explain to me whether I am right in interpreting this clause as meaning that the non-production of tax certificates makes an African liable to arrest. As I read the clause, that is exactly what it does. It does not only apply to the ordinary tax stamp for his poll tax, the personal tax, but it seems to me that, by virtue of section 43 (1) (d) with which this clause is linked, that is the effect. If the Minister would look at clause 43 (1) (d), it says “being a person by whom any general tax consisting of a fixed amount or a local tax or special rate is payable …”. Now I take that to mean the special income tax rate. If I am wrong I will be glad to hear it, and I hope the Deputy Minister will clarify this point.

During my Second Reading speech yesterday I told the hon. member for Houghton that she was a hardworking member, but that here she has made a little slip-up. I can assure the hon. member that there is no intention of arresting any Bantu because he does not have with him the certificate issued by the Secretary for payments that have been made. She has now referred me to clause 43 (1) (d), which says “being a person by whom any general tax consisting of a fixed amount or a local tax or special rate is payable under this Act or any law repealed by this Act, fails or failed to pay any such tax or rate on or before the last date permitted for payment of such a tax in terms of the law under which it was payable”. That is of course an offence, but no authorized person like a policeman or a tax collector will be in a position to arrest a taxpayer because he does not have his tax certificates with him. If he does not have his receipt for the fixed amount with him, then he can be arrested.

That is very ambiguous.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 24:

I see that an employee shall not be entitled to recover from an employer any amount deducted for payment of tax in terms of this clause. Now I realize that what the Minister is trying to avoid is the additional income not being counted in the taxable income of R360 and upwards, but I think it is a bit harsh to make it a punishable offence for an employer who decides to make some sort of bonus remission to his employee by virtue of the tax he has deducted. In other words, an employer may decide as a bonus, shall we say, and not as a fixed salary amount or fixed income amount, to assist the employee who is finding it very difficult to pay the tax. As I mentioned before, large numbers of employees are living on the poverty datum line and 10 cents makes a great deal of difference to them, whatever the Minister may think, and in any case the tax goes up to as much as over R4 in the third category. I think it is a bit harsh to make this a penalty so that any employer who might have any idea of assisting his employee in this regard immediately falls foul of this Act. It is a very harsh provision indeed.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. member that any employer is free to pay such tax if he prefers to do so, as long as that tax is paid in. We are not going to ask the employer whether he has actually deducted this money or whether he is paying the money out of his own pocket. That has nothing to do with us. What is actually meant in this clause is that an employee cannot come to an employer and accuse him of having kept back some of the employee’s money. Let it be the 10 cents which is kept back every month on a salary of R360 per year. All that this clause provides is that the employee has no right to claim that the employer should repay to him this tax which has been deducted.

Clause put and agreed to.

Title of the Bill put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—102: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W, C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith,, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—34: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Title of the Bill accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, last Friday the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Sea Point, and the entire Opposition queried the figure of a per capita income of R105 for the Bantu homelands in the strongest possible terms. In reply to the question asked by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition I said by way of interjection that I would revert to this matter. I have great pleasure in doing so now.

I know the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as a gentleman and as someone who tries to be fair. I have no doubt at all that he will act in that way in this case as well. I am sure that he and the Opposition will agree that if the amount should be R105 per capita, not per earner, for the homelands, it would be a very great achievement and good proof of what progress has been made by the Government in connection with the implementation of its policy of development in the Bantu homelands. I think I am correct in saying that the hon. members on that side of the House and their hon. Leader agree.

Does per capita include wife and children?

I shall explain in a moment what per capita is. From the silence on that side of the House I infer that they agree. Now I want to ask what the facts are. Before doing so, however, I want to say that we are dealing with a vitally important matter here. I want to point out that the hon. member for Sea Point expressed himself very strongly about this when I mentioned the figure. He referred to me, and said—

This is of course not true, but I am quoting the hon. member. He went even further and said I did not know what per capita meant. The hon. member for Transkei also repeatedly by way of interjection used the word “nonsense”. The hon. member said I was talking nonsense. The hon. member for Durban (Point) adopted the same attitude. Now I want to ask: What are the facts? When discussing this, I do so with a full sense of responsibility. I did the same in the discussion of the Vote. The facts are, firstly, the figure given by Dr. Adendorff, which was used on various occasions by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition here, i.e. R53 per capita, and which was mentioned by Dr. Adendorff on the occasion of the 1966 Sabra Congress, is the figure calculated by Professor Stadler for 1960 and 1961, i.e. nine years ago. I received confirmation from Dr. Adendorff that the figure he used at the Sabra Congress was the figure of Dr. Stadler of 1960-’61. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition used this figure to point out how poor our homeland policy actually was. Now I want to point out that my figure of R56.7 for all the homelands in the Republic is also a figure that was furnished by Professor Stadler for the period 1960-’61. It is also a correct figure, because it was for all the homelands in the Republic. The figure furnished by Dr. Adendorff was only in regard to the Transkei. I can give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition written proof of that.

That is not what I say.

I can show it to the hon. the Leader. Now I want to tell hon. members on that side of the House that I have a letter from Dr. Adendorff, which reads as follows (translation)—

… the same persons who did so in 1960-’61, i.e. Professor Stadler, Professor Lombard and Mr. Van der Merwe. The survey was made only in respect of the Transkei. Sir, these calculations show the per capita income for the de jure population of the Transkei for 1967-’68. [Interjections.] Just wait a moment. They show the per capita income of the Transkei for 1967-’68 as being R104.30 per annum.

Repeat that.

Shall I repeat it? This scientific investigation was conducted by the same people who conducted it in 1960-’61, i.e. Professor Stadler, Professor Lombard and Mr. Van der Merwe. This is a scientific investigation; it has nothing to do with the National Party Government, and shows that the per capita income for the de jure population of the Transkei is R104.30. [Interjections.] Yes, I wonder how that feels. I hope the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other members will in future, when I mention statistics, not behave as they are behaving now.

But, Sir, now I want to go further. I have a letter in my hand from Dr. Adendorff, saying that since the calculations for 1960-’61 had been made, the said figure was determined. But Professor Stadler, Professor Lombard, Mr. Van der Merwe and Dr. Adendorff are agreed that, based on that scientific finding of 1967-’68, if all the other factors are taken into account, for example, population increase in the homelands and other factors I cannot mention for lack of time, the income per capita, not per earner, for the year 1967-’68 of all the Bantu homelands in the Republic of South Africa is R108. This is what they say, not what I say. In addition I went to the trouble of getting in touch with the planning adviser of the Prime Minister, Dr. P. S. Rautenbach, who knows a great deal about these matters and who was previously concerned with these investigations into the per capita income in our Bantu homelands. He gave me a long exposition. In that exposition he came to the conclusion that the figure of R104.30 per capita per year for the Transkei, and the R108 given by these gentlemen as the per capita income for 1967-’68 for all our homelands, may in the light of all the facts be accepted to be as nearly correct as can be determined at present. I therefore hope that when I furnish facts here in future, it will at least be accepted that I am talking with the necessary bona fides, that I know what I am talking about.

I may tell the hon. members that when the hon. the Leader mentioned the figure in the no-confidence debate, with all the miserable implications he inferred from it, I immediately got in touch with my Department. I wanted to react to it during the no-confidence debate, but I could not obtain the particulars at the time. I have been waiting for months to react. On account of the fact that I had only 10 minutes to speak, I could mention the figure of R105 only in passing. As I always do, I mentioned a conservative figure, although I know that it was put at more than R105, because I did not want to run the risk of being accused of going beyond my bounds in connection with the statistics which I give. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his Party displayed disbelief in respect of a simple fact which I put to the House. They unleashed a terrific storm over my head and, by doing so, proved how easily they fall into a trap, because if ever there was an example of that, it was in this case. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition fell into this trap so beautifully, and that after I had previously told him in a private conversation that the per capita income was now being indicated as R105. I hope that through this disbelief they have once again been exposed before the voters of this country as people who are prepared to disparage and to try to ridicule grand attempts made by this Government to develop the Bantu homelands. With all the necessary piety they compare it with Tanzania and all the other countries of Africa. Then they want to bluff the world in believing that the Bantu homelands in South Africa are in such a terribly poor state, compared with those other African countries. I came up against this in America. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think we are all very indebted, indeed, to the hon. the Deputy Minister for the explanation he has given us this afternoon. He will recall, of course, that when last we discussed this matter in this debate, his distinction was between per capita income and income per earner.

I said I would explain. I was doing so now.

Well, that is one thing he has not explained to-day.

I did not have the time to go into all the details.

Do let us be sensible about this question. It is a very important matter. Children normally are not earners. The hon. gentleman now is including every single member of the family. It is per capita income. That includes the non-earners as well as the earners.

But it is worked out on earners’ wages. That is the point.

I see. It is worked out on earners’ wages, and then it is divided by the whole population. Are we right? [Interjections.] I wish the hon. the Deputy Minister could just give me a little attention. It is worked out on the wages of earners and then divided by the total population.

But it is quite a complicated process. [Laughter.]

Let me tell the hon. gentleman quite simply that I quoted from a speech made by Dr. Adendorff. I do wish the Deputy Minister would listen. It is no good arguing against oneself. The speech from which I quoted was one by Dr. Adendorff. He said:

Not the “de jure-inwoners”—

Nine years ago.

He went on—

Die buiteverdienste word bygetel—

Those are the figures for 1959-’60.

Now, is the hon. gentleman asking us to believe that the income per capita has been doubled in the last nine to ten years? If one has regard to what has been happening in the most prosperous areas of the Republic, it is very difficult indeed to accept those figures.

But you do not know about border areas. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, let us get this quite straight. The whole difference, I think, is that we have now imported into this matter the new term, the de jure population. I suppose that the de jure population are people who can vote. Because, Sir, if they cannot vote, they cannot be de jure. If they are de jure, they must be able to vote. It must include the children. I am afraid we are reaching a comparison which is completely unacceptable to me at the moment. I should like to study the hon. gentleman’s speech. I think it is a most extraordinary statement he has made. As it stands at the moment, I am afraid, much as I should like to, I cannot accept it.

I would like to reply to a few questions put to me by the hon. member for South Coast last week in connection with hospitalization in the Bantu areas, especially in Natal.

Tell us what de jure is.

The hon. member referred to hospitalization in Natal. He spoke in general terms about Bantu hospitalization in the white areas of Natal as well as in the Bantu areas of Natal. I would like to draw this distinction first of all between the two areas. As regards the white areas of Natal the position is absolutely unchanged and has remained unchanged since 1910. The position in the white areas in Natal and in all the other provinces is unchanged; that is to say, the province of Natal is responsible for capital works as well as for administrative expenses connected with the hospitalization of the Bantu. That is the position in the white areas with regard to general hospital work. In connection with general hospital work the province of Natal makes provision for the capital requirements as well as for the administrative requirements. Tuberculosis, mental hygiene and matters of that kind which fall under the Minister of Health, are, of course, not the responsibility of the province, but of the Minister of Health. It is the duty of the Minister of Health in both the white and the Bantu areas to make provision for the capital requirements as well as for the administrative requirements.

Now I would like to deal with the Bantu areas of Natal, and as a matter of fact, the Bantu areas of all the provinces, excluding South-West Africa, where the position is a little different. With regard to the Bantu reserves in South Africa, the position changed after 1964. Since 1964, i.e. in the last four years, the position has been as follows: With regard to capital requirements, that is to say, the construction of buildings, the Bantu Trust undertakes the responsibility. Administrative expenses, that is to say, the running costs of the hospitals, the payment of the salaries of doctors, nurses and other staff members and other administrative expenses such as telephone charges, etc., are still the financial responsibility of the province, and not of my department. In other words, if an extension is required to an existing hospital in a Bantu homeland, then my department undertakes the capital work; that is to say, we make provision for the capital requirements in connection with the extension to the building and for that equipment which forms part of the permanent structure. In a hospital, of course, there are many things which are erected and installed together with the building; they form part of the structure of the building. The Bantu Trust is therefore responsible for the capital requirements in that connection. With regard to the Bantu areas we must remember that there are also private hospitals.

Mission hospitals.

Yes. As a matter of fact in Natal, unless I am mistaken, there is only one hospital in the Bantu reserves which is a provincial hospital and that is the Edendale Hospital near Pietermaritzburg, in the Swartkops reserve. All the other general hospitals in Natal, in the Bantu areas, excluding hospitals for mental hygiene and tuberculosis, are mission hospitals, in other words, private hospitals, and there the same principle applies. If the mission hospital stands on land owned by the mission, then the Trust cannot, of course, pay for capital extension works on the property of the mission. They then have to sell the land to us first of all. We then give them the right of occupation of a building of theirs standing on our land. As far as I can remember we have not done that so far and there are only a few such cases. But the general position is that the ownership of the land still vests in the Trust, but the building on the land belongs to the mission which erected it many years ago. If such buildings have to be extended, then the Trust is responsible for the capital expenditure, but as far as the administrative expenses are concerned, the payment of the salaries of the staff, etc., there is still the old relationship which existed throughout the years between the mission and the province, that is to say, the province subsidizes the administrative expenses of that particular hospital. That is still the position to-day, and that has been the position since 1964. In Natal, we have erected hospitals and extended existing hospitals at a cost of R5.8 million, i.e. from 1966 up to the 31st March, 1969. For the current year, 1969-’70, we make provision in the Estimates which are now before us for capital works in the Bantu homelands in Natal at a cost of R1,270,000. The position is that in the last few years we have undertaken a number of extension works at existing hospitals, and for the current year we envisage extension works in, I think, 14 or 15 cases. We are also making provision for new hospitals to be erected in the current year in Bantu homelands at Dalmeni to the northwest of Durban, at Madadeni, a Bantu township near Newcastle, at Pieter’s Area near Ladysmith and at Umlazi to the south of Durban, as the hon. member knows. In the current year we also envisage a fairly big extension at Edendale, a Bantu area near Pietermaritzburg, and we also hope in the course of the coming year to complete the new hospital which was started a little more than a year ago at Ngwelezana near Empangeni. That is the position with regard to hospitalization.

Those hospitals will be staffed by the provinces?

Those hospitals, according to the present arrangement, will be staffed by the province if they are provincial hospitals like Edendale. If they are mission hospitals then, of course, they will be staffed in collaboration with the province by the mission authorities and subsidized by the province in so far as the mission needs subsidization. Sir, with regard to the remark made here by the hon. member for South Coast that the Minister cannot find the doctors and the personnel, I want to point out that he is totally wrong, because I do not find any personnel or any doctors for any hospital in South Africa. So far it has been the duty of the province to find the personnel required for general hospitalization, in collaboration with the churches where they are involved. With regard to tuberculosis and mental hygiene, it is the duty of my colleague, the Minister of Health, to find the necessary personnel to staff the hospitals. That is the whole position with regard to hospitalization.

When the House adjourned last night I was quoting a notice which was served on householders in the East London area. For that matter, it applies to householders all along the borders of the Native Reserves. It is a notice served by an insurance company on all householders paying premiums on their houses. This is what I was quoting—

I explained to the House last night the problems being faced by householders in the areas adjoining the Native Reserves, and I blamed the Department of Bantu Administration mainly for this problem. It is a very serious problem and apparently the Department is not doing anything about it simply because in the first place they are not providing employment for the Bantu being repatriated from the Western Cape and the other urban areas and also from the platteland rural areas. Nothing is being done to provide work for these people, with the result that burglars are very active in the Eastern Cape and Border. I was rather shocked during the recess to see what is actually taking place in the agricultural areas of the platteland. Here I want to draw attention to one particular area, namely Middelburg, Cape, which apparently lies west of the line and has been declared a Coloured area. I have received letters, and here is one which I will quote from briefly. It comes from one particular farmer in that area and this is what he says—

He is annoyed because his Bantu labour is being removed from this area.

Do you say that Bantu labour is being removed from the farms?

Yes, from the farming area of Middelburg, and they have to rely on Coloureds to do the work. Meanwhile people from the Western Cape, who go in for intensive farming here and are able to pay higher wages than the ordinary wool farmer on the platteland, are taking away the Coloured labour from the platteland again, and these people are being left with virtually no labour at all. And where are these people being removed to? The Deputy Minister sits there and appears to be rather surprised. I am not surprised at his actions because I do not think he really knows what is going on in that area. Where are these people going to? According to these farmers, they are being moved to the Queenstown and King William’s Town areas. Now we look at correspondence coming from the other end, from the King William’s Town area, the receiving end of surplus Bantu. Here I have another letter written to the Middelburg people, private individuals, appealing for help for Bantu who are being repatriated to an area they mention here, the Keiskamma Hoek area. I quote—

To think that after 21 years of Nationalist rule, parts of South Africa are still faced with this terrible problem! And it will become worse, unless this Government sits up and takes notice of what we on this side of the House tell them.

I want to mention another matter which I am afraid has not been raised by Government members in this House during this debate, and I was expecting it to be mentioned here yesterday. This is the independence issue, the independence which has been promised to the Bantu Reserves when they have reached maturity. Questions have been put to hon. Ministers on that side, and not one Minister nor one hon. member opposite, has endeavoured to answer questions in regard to independence being granted to the Bantustans. I know why they do not want to raise it. It is because there is not one Nationalist in South Africa who accepts their policy of independence for the Bantu, so much so that during the last by-election in Newcastle when I was moving about visiting people, I never found one Nationalist there either, who was prepared to accept independence for any race group in South Africa. I wish hon. members would listen to what I am going to say, because this is very important. Not only do they reject the independence issue, but they do not believe in it either.

You are talking rubbish.

The hon. member says I am talking rubbish. Not only do they not believe in it, but do you know, Sir, that as a United Party canvasser I was falsely accused by Nationalists, and this is what they had to say. [Interjections.] I want the Deputy Minister to listen to me, because this is what your own voters told me in Newcastle—

Can you believe it, Sir? I could hardly credit it. This story came from senior children in schools, children in Stds. 9 and 10, who told me that they belonged to the Nationalist Party because they did not believe in a party which was prepared to give the Bantu independence. This is absolutely true, Sir, and I have witnesses to substantiate this, if the Deputy Minister does not believe this statement. I want Ministers to tell us here this afternoon, what the ultimate end of the road is, for their policy. They must tell us about this independence issue. I do not think it is being honest to the voters of South Africa, because the voters quite clearly are being hopelessly misled. The day we as an Opposition can convince the electorate of what this Government’s policy is, they will and must obviously vote against it.

We have been listening these last few days to the lamentations of the Opposition that the National Party has done nothing during the last two decades for the advancement of the Bantu in South Africa. I only want to ask this question, and I also want to put it to the hon. member for Houghton. During the years I have been sitting here I have never seen that hon. member getting up and pleading for the Whites of South Africa or for the continued existence of the white man here; she has always pleaded for and been concerned about the Bantu, who allegedly is treated so unjustly in this country. I am thankful that the National Party came in power in 1948, and I am as thankful to-day that the white man came to this southern tip of Africa. If the white man had not come to the southern tip of Africa, the Bantu would have been in a much worse position to-day than they are; then the Bantu groups would have exterminated one another. Sir, the Bantu in this country are making rapid progress to-day. The hon. the Deputy Minister has proved to us what income they are receiving in the Bantu homelands.

No, not in the Bantu homelands.

We shall rather not pay attention to the hon. member for Yeoville, because I can find no connection between him and reasonableness in political life. He will never be able to gain an insight into the life of this nation, because he is politically blind.

In connection with what I want to plead for, I want to confine myself to the Bantu homelands. Here I want to ask that we should inspire the Bantu with the same love for his homeland as the white man has for his homeland. Therefore we should begin with the primary industry, agriculture, in the homelands to teach the Bantu to love the soil which is his own. We are grateful to the hon. the Deputy Minister who is dealing with this matter, for what has already been achieved. I say that the Bantu must be taught first to see to his own food supplies and to feed his own people. Are we not laying too much stress on secondary industries to-day? Should we not rather teach the Bantu first of all to cultivate his own homeland and to feed his own people? Should we not first of all inspire love for this in them? That is what I am pleading for today. I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the planning which is already being undertaken in the homelands and for the agricultural colleges which have been provided there to teach the Bantu child to love the soil of his forefathers. There are thousands of Bantu in the cities to-day who are longing just as much each for his own piece of land in the homeland as is the case with many of us Whites who are jammed together here in the cities. We should teach and help the Bantu youth to go back to their own homelands. We must provide them with the necessary facilities and make them realize that they should cultivate the land of their forefathers in the first place, that they should also make their contribution towards feeding their people. However much our friend the hon. member for East London (North) may complain, it is perfectly clear that the Bantu population of South Africa is more advanced than any population of any other country in Africa— from the point of view of hospitalization, from the point of view of universities … I notice the hon. member for Hillbrow smiling when I say this. But let him tell me, with all his knowledge of the world—he who once annexed a country and governed it as its ruler —where he could find a population in Africa which was better off than the Bantu people here in South Africa, lust compare the number of graduates and you will see that we here in South Africa have made much more progress than any other country in Africa. But what do we find? This is a matter in which the Government and the Opposition should co-operate, to make something genuine of it, to show that we are sincere in our intentions towards our Bantu population. But what do we find? From the side of the Opposition we are for ever being accused of breaking down these people, of not granting them anything. But this is not so, because we do grant them what belongs to them and what is their due. However, we shall not do so at the expense of the white man. The white man has come to the southern tip of Africa to stay and to spread civilization, and we will keep on doing that good work. The hon. the Minister and his two Deputy Ministers are to be …

Congratulated!

Yes, I find it an honour to do so. Hon. members on the other side, on the other hand, will never have the opportunity of congratulating anybody. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his two Deputy Ministers on what they have already achieved in regard to this major task with which they are faced. The world is watching us, and therefore we can only pray that God will bestow his richest blessings upon them so that peace and order will prevail in South Africa.

I want to say very quickly to the hon. member for Stilfontein that it is because of the fact that he has been here only a few years that he has never heard me talking about the Whites. However, if he had listened hard enough, he would have realized that every time I talk about non-Whites I am thinking also of the future of the white man in this country. [Interjections.] I believe that the fate of White and non-White in this country is irrevocably bound together and unless we can produce conditions of true contentment for our non-Whites we are going to leave the most terrible legacy to our children. So, enough of that.

I should immediately like to come to the hon. the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration. May I have his attention please? He has given us the most extraordinary figures I have ever had to listen to in my life, figures in connection with the per capita income of the de jure population. He has not, however, defined the term de jure …

Don’t you know the meaning of the term?

No, not in this context. What is more, I doubt whether anybody else in this House does know, including the hon. the Minister. But I will tell you what I think is meant by it and if I am right, these figures are even more skew in a statistical sense than could be imagined. What is meant by the de jure population is, I think, everybody wherever he lives—Cape Town, Durban, Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth, and any other urban centre in South Africa, and also including the white farms, persons with a Transkeian background and who will be getting a Transkeian passport in terms of the Bill which is going to come before the House later this Session. This is what I believe is meant by the de jure population. Well, it is the biggest nonsense I have ever heard in my life.

It is the same as the figure for 1960-’61 was based on.

No, it is not.

That is not possible. There was no such animal as a registration of people in the urban areas for the Transkei before 1961.

May I ask you a question?

If I can finish my speech within the time available to me, you may. The point I want to make here is that these statistical methods are open to question, open to the most serious questioning. And I know something about statistics, having had a bit of training in it.

I would say that the probable error in these statistics must be unbelievably high apart from the fact that the whole basis of the calculation is nonsense from beginning to end, because they have included here permanently urbanized people. I am absolutely sure of that. I say this, because I looked back to the Tomlinson Commission’s statistics, which admittedly must have been based on figures about 15 years ago. The Tomlinson Commission report, after a most searching survey, estimated a family of five in the reserves to have an annual income of £43; R86 per annum for a family of five. Even with the most generous calculations, allowing a 10 per cent per annum growth, the Deputy Minister’s figure is impossible. We only aim at five per cent in our industrial growth, and a 10 per cent per annum growth rate is unheard of. But allowing for that, I have done a very quick cumulative calculation. At the very most the per capita income could have risen to R68.

That is nonsense.

Well, that is nonsense!

That is your wish.

No, do not talk nonsense. I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to table the survey on which these statistics were based. I also challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to ask whoever produced that figure to give us his statistical method, line by line and figure by figure, because I say quite categorically these figures are nonsense. The concept of a de jure population including people permanently urbanized is nonsense. I also want to point out to the Deputy Minister that the Tomlinson Commission’s figure of £43 per family of five was based on the value of produce produced by the family of five and the cash earnings of the migratory workers. But those were truly migratory workers. Those were people who were based in the reserves and came into the towns as migratory workers. I say that this de jure population figure includes people who have been located permanently in the urban areas for at least one generation and certainly have no intention of going back. In other words, if I may coin a phrase a la the Minister, the permanent temporary sojourners. That is what has been included. I am absolutely convinced of that. I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister and I will come back to this over and over again until he tables that report and lets us examine it with a magnifying glass.

You will swallow everything you have said.

If I have to swallow, I will swallow. However, I have a feeling it will be the hon. the Deputy Minister who will have to do the swallowing. I think he has done his career irreparable harm today by coming along to this House with this nonsense of de jure populations. He should be ashamed of himself. [Interjections.]

I come to another subject altogether and I now wish to crave the indulgence of the hon. the Minister himself.

[Inaudible.]

Now do not be cross. I want you just to put your mind to this, if possible, objectively. I am putting in a plea for people I have pleaded for many years ago in this House, namely the remaining, thank heavens reduced, number of banished persons who are now still living in scattered areas all over South Africa. I think there are still some 21 of these people. I want to point out that two of those people have been in banishment for 18 years now. They are very old. The hon. the Minister should let them go back whence they came if there is anybody left to greet them. One has been in banishment for 15 years, five for eight years, five for six years, six for five years and two for three years. There have been no people banished under the 1927 Bantu Administration Act in the past two or three years. Thank goodness. I ask the hon. the Minister now to put his mind to it. This does us no good. It was never a law intended to be used politically. It was a law intended to be used in quite different ways for Africans who are living on water sheds and so on and doing harm to the land. But this is now used as a political Act. As I say, there are people who have been in banishment now for 15 or 18 years. The hon. the Minister tells me these cases are reviewed from time to time.

Yes.

I know. Well I think it is time these people are given the opportunity of appearing before the Minister personally. He is the arbiter of their final years.

I get reports from time to time.

No, I want the hon. the Minister to have these people appear before him personally. Then he can cross-examine them.

Do you want him to be a Judge?

Yes, since he puts himself in the position of a Judge. Indeed, he takes powers that a Judge does not even take, because there is no appeal from his decision. He takes powers beyond that of a Judge of the lower courts. That is why I ask him to give this matter his special consideration.

There is another matter which I should like to bring to his attention. This is also a political matter. There are people who come out of gaol having served sentences for political offences who are immediately endorsed out of the city. I know that in terms of section 10 those people forfeit their rights of permanent residence in the urban areas. But I also want to point out to the hon. the Minister that in terms of other prison regulations, people who come out of prison are supposed to be allowed to rehabilitate themselves once again to earn a decent living. I have case after case where people write to me from the Transkei, from the Ciskei, from all the reserves saying they have come out of gaol, have served their sentences and have been endorsed out of the urban areas. Some of these people are banned but some of them are not banned. They have no opportunity of getting any work whatever. They are not even engaged for contract work. I want the hon. the Minister please to have an investigation made to establish if there is any overall instruction which prevents these people who have served their term of imprisonment from resuming normal life again.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member did not touch upon any matters which fall under me. Nor do I have any intention of interfering in the private dispute between her and my colleague. I know that he is more than a match for her. He will settle accounts with her. I just want to inform her and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I have nothing to do with this matter. Something which I find strange, however, is that they quote the figure of R53 per Bantu per year for the year 1960-’61, but the estimate on the same basis and by the same people that this amount is now R108, does not suit them. [Interjections.] They can argue out the logic of that now. There are other matters which fall under me to which I shall now reply.

On Friday, when I was engaged in giving an account of development in the Bantu homelands, there was insufficient time for me to finish doing so. There was quite a good deal of development which I still wanted to mention. For example, I still wanted to discuss hard fibre development, forestry, how many extension officers we have, how many farmers co-operative associations we had established, and so on. But, as it became quite apparent to me in the past, it is now even more apparent that I am simply wasting my breath explaining all these improvements to an unwilling Opposition. That is why I shall leave it at that. I shall instead supply some information on other matters in regard to which questions were put to me and which fall within my domain.

I come now to my friend, the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. the Minister has already furnished him with a reply as far as hospitalization is concerned. He then discussed a few other matters. Inter alia, he referred to my Sabra speech which I made on 5th October, 1967. I just want to tell him that he must not allow himself to be misled by distorted extracts from certain newspapers. What I now want to say to him, I say in all humility. I have here in my possession quite a long list of official documents on every subject which affects our Department. In this way there is for example documents dealing with separate development by Bell, etc. Heading the list is one of the authoritative documents of our Department, namely the speech by the hon. Deputy Minister Vosloo which he made at the Sabra conference in 1968. [Laughter.] Yes, I know the hon. member is laughing, because he has never yet taken the trouble to read that speech. It is an authoritative document on land tenure. I know this hon. member will take the trouble and I shall also let him have a copy. I know he has no difficulty with Afrikaans, but if he should have some difficulty, I shall also have it translated for him. But if he were to read it he would see that I have never said that it is not necessary to consolidate Bantu areas. What I did in fact say was that the independence of the Bantu areas is not dependent upon whether they are consolidated or not. I quoted overseas examples in this regard. The hon. member must not wrest my speech out of context now because the English Press did so at the time because it suited them. I have never asked the hon. member to credit me with a high degree of intelligence. The hon. member quoted from the Natal Mercury, and referred particularly to the section according to which I had supposedly stated in Newcastle that “there was growing suffering in the Bantu reserves”. I do nevertheless ask him to credit me with a certain degree of intelligence. Then I think he will realize that I would not talk such nonsense in an election campaign, unless it had been wrested out of its context entirely. If I had spoken such nonsense, we would not have won that Newcastle by-election.

I now want to refer to another matter which the hon. member touched upon here. He spoke about the situation in the Bantu reserves, as he called them, where there was not even sufficient thatching grass with which the Bantu could thatch their huts. That is correct; this is the case particularly in the tribal lands which belong to certain tribes. There we have as yet been unable to make the breakthrough of getting them so far as to undertake planning. Where we did in fact undertake planning, we have already planned camps which have to be set aside, so that the necessary thatching grass with which they can thatch their homes can grow. They will then be able to obtain that material in that area. After all, we do have a quite humane department. In many cases where we did in fact have planning, and where the thatching grass grew to such an extent that it reached the length at which it could be cut, we lent assistance with the provision of the necessary building materials. The hon. member will concede this point to me, because he knows that area, i.e. that there are tribal lands where a tremendous amount of damage has been done by soil erosion. We are not yet able to plan these areas, because we are as yet unable to do so. There are also areas where planning is not yet accepted, so that we cannot go that far. Before we go so far as to undertake planning, we lay out a residential area, so that the huts are not spread over the entire area. We go even further. We pay out the man for that hut of his according to a valuation of what that hut is worth to him. If there is anything he still wishes to add, we add it for him. We also help him to settle in the new residential area, with the necessary thatching grass, if it is available, and the necessary building material. The hon. member stated here that the Bantu were not allowed to plough, and that the animals were dying. We do not allow ploughing on land which has been planned as pasturage, or if it is impossible to plough on contour. The hon. member knows as well as I do how much damage has already been done here by injudicious ploughing up steep slopes and so on. Animals have in fact been dying, particularly in the unplanned areas. Where there were planned areas, my most difficult task during the past drought was to refuse white applicants who wanted to rent veld there because there was pasturage there. We cannot rent it to them, because we acquired that pasturage through planning and because it has to be used by the Bantu. I am pleased the hon. member stated that he admitted that the situation had improved since 1948. I wanted to give him the assurance that, given a little more time, we will be able to progress to such an extent that the situation will be much better.

The hon. member spoke here about water provision. In this connection I have obtained the figures which extend from the periods 1st January, 1961 to 31st March, 1969. I am also furnishing these figures for the information of the hon. member for South Coast. During this period 172 drinking dams were built in the Natal area, 115 boreholes in which water was found, were equipped, and full water provision schemes were laid out at the Kanda’s Point, the Cwaka Agricultural School, the Ngoya University, and at 11 Bantu townships. As far as irrigation schemes are concerned 1,473 morgen were placed under irrigation during that period.

We have this afternoon, in a very fitting way, passed a motion of condolence here on the death of the hon. member for Albany. For record purposes I shall just supply information in regard to a quotation which was read out by the late hon. member. The late hon. member referred here to a speech which was made by a person who had been incorrectly informed. That person stated that only 37 students obtained agricultural diplomas from the agricultural schools during a period of 11 years. That person’s information was incorrect. Over the past five years 300 agricultural students have received their diplomas, 107 livestock inspectors have received diplomas, and plus-minus 70 forestry students theirs. There are opportunities for employment for all these people; they will all be employed, if they want to be employed by the Department. However, it happens that these people sometimes receive better offers from other bodies and we therefore do not utilize their services. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to return to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s more junior comrade, the hon. the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration and Education. This gentleman got somewhat hot under the collar earlier this afternoon when we asked him to define de jure. We can fully understand the dilemma in which he landed himself, but until he defines this concept, we are not in the position to assess its relevance. We really do wish him to define it now. There might be another and easier way in which he could do it. Perhaps he would be prepared to tell us of the fantastic per capita income of R108 per year that he has mentioned, perhaps he would like to indicate what proportion of this income is earned in the homelands themselves, and what proportion is earned outside in the so-called white areas. I suggest that he will find a major portion of it is earned outside the homelands, in which case he would prove only one thing, and that is that there is an increasing degree of economic integration in South Africa.

I also want to refer to something else, and that is the interesting case of domestic servants in Randburg. This was an issue which arose earlier on this year. Randburg occupies an important position, because it became the guinea-pig in the Government’s “White by night” system. Here was after all an elementary facet of the Government’s apartheid philosophy which they had to implement in an environment which is probably as advantageous as one could possibly find. Well, they lost out on this one. They suffered defeat and I think Randburg will come one day to take up a very important position in the history of apartheid in this country; it will come to be known as the Waterloo of the apartheid campaign in South Africa.

Perhaps hon. members will allow me to outline the events which preceded this unusual situation. Sometime last year the Government issued an edict which read as follows:

They had to be repatriated by a given date. Why this order was limited to Bantu females from the rural areas of the homelands and why they could not work in Randburg, I really cannot fathom. I would imagine it is merely the bureaucratic mind that could arrive at this sort of injunction. Be that as it may, this was the order. Our punch drunk South African public for once however decided that they were going to protest against this order because it concerned them personally. So they organized protest meetings and the reaction to this was most unusual. The Randburg City Council got itself into a dither and newspapers which normally support the Government came forward with the advice that the situation should be handled with circumspection because it was a most complicated and difficult one. They also said that the matter should not be dragged into the field of politics. I have heard before that sport should not be dragged into the field of politics, but what we are asked here is to have politics without apartheid and to have apartheid with no politics.

I do not precisely know what the machinations are in the Bantu Affairs Department. The key role was apparently take by this hon. Deputy Minister and I suspect that he did not father the scheme, but that he was rather left to hold the baby. His predecessor, who has now been elevated, was the man who staked his political reputation when he told us that in the magic year of 1978 he was going to slow down, stop and reverse the influx of Bantu. Now I would imagine that this hon. Deputy Minister would not be so unwise as to stake his political reputation in the same way. Perhaps there is more at stake, but I imagine that he at least felt he was morally committed to this particular scheme. But when the protesting residents of Randburg asked to interview him and to put their case he turned it down and he did so in a way which, I may just mention, caused great resentment. I think what is more important is the philosophy that he put across in the letter he wrote to motivate this decision. Among other things in motivating why he was not prepared to meet this deputation, he said: “The Government does not recommend the employment of Bantu servants.” What does this mean? Does it mean that the Government recommends the employment of coloured or white servants or does it mean that the Government wants to create a servantless society? Or what does he mean? If we cannot have Bantu servants, why can we then have Bantus in our factories and on our farms? [Interjections.] I think the matter is going to be taken out of the hands of the hon. the Deputy Minister in any case, because I want to suggest to him that we are not going to have servants. I take as guide the editorial in an authoritative publication, namely the Bantu Education Journal of March, 1969. Right at the beginning they say that the editorial was written on behalf of the department and that it is the responsibility of the editorial committee. There follows a full set of names, headed by Dr. H. J. van Zyl, the Secretary. This is an interesting document. Among other things the following is stated in this editorial:

I want to know whether the taxpayers have to pay for this sort of propaganda which goes out in official documents, or is this part of the new outward-looking policy?

I want to know with what we are concerned here, and I want to refer to some figures which come from Dagbreek. They recently undertook a survey on the question of Bantu servants. They found that in Pretoria, and after all Pretoria is known as the Mecca of Calvinistic Nationalism, 48,000 servants were employed. In Durban, on the other hand, which I suppose one could refer to as the Medina of British Liberalism there were only 30,000 Bantu servants employed. The populations of these two cities are comparable. Is the hon. the Deputy Minister going to tell the good people of Pretoria that they are no longer to have domestic servants? But what is he going to do with the domestic servants in any case? I want to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that there are close to 1 million of them employed in South Africa. If they are not going to be allowed to work in homes, what are they going to do then? Will they become superfluous appendages to be sent to the reserves? What will they do when they get to the reserves?

But there is another argument, namely that the economic participation rate in South Africa is only 37 per cent at the moment, which is much lower than in Britain and in many other countries, where it is 50 per cent. Already the Government wants the white people to supply all the managerial skills. Do they now also want them to carry out all the menial tasks? Our economic participation rate is so low because so few South African wives work. Is it now the Government’s policy to stop those wives who do work from doing so? What impact will this have on national productivity? These are the questions we want the hon. the Deputy Minister to answer.

In this most unusual letter the hon. the Deputy Minister went on to state: “We cannot” and just to show his “kragdadigheid” he says: “And we will not, force Bantu to do housework,” and then comes the anti-climax, “if they do not want to do it.” What does this mean? Surely this is just about the silliest statement that has yet come from a Government that has almost the monopoly in this regard. I do not even want to debate this item, but the hon. the Deputy Minister went on and said: “Illegal Bantu must be expatriated.” What does this mean? What is an illegal Bantu? Surely he refers to South-African-born Bantu? How can they become illegal and what makes them illegal? Secondly he says that they must be expatriated. What does expatriation mean? It means banishment and loss of citizenship, and surely this is a massive penalty that he is now going to impose upon ordinary non-white people who work in our homes and on Whom we depend. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to reply to the hon. member for Hillbrow in regard to the question of Randburg, because I am not in a position to do so. I shall leave that to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I should like to return to the question of the calculation of the income of the population of the Transkei. The calculation which was made in 1960-’61 by these scientists was also a calculation which was made for the de jure population of the Transkei. These hon. gentlemen did the same thing again in 1967-’68. Let us get this quite straight. In so far as this Government is concerned, and we argued this point ad nauseam last year, we accept that there is economic inter-dependence as far as the Bantu of these different homelands are concerned. The United Party must not try to catch us with such an obvious stratagem. When it comes to the calculation of the income of any Bantu homeland, it is pursuant upon our policy that the de jure population will be taken as a whole, whether they are living in that homeland or working outside. We have always said there is economic inter-dependence among these people and we allow them to have their ties with and their ownership of the soil in their own homelands, but we also allow them to find work as migratory labourers in the white homelands. It suits the United Party with its policy of integration to want to distinguish here. All calculations made by us will be made for the de jure population of any Bantu homeland, whether it is the Transkei, or the Ciskei or any other homeland. The hon. member and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must simply accept that since the 1960-’61 calculation there has been a considerable improvement in the income of the de jure population of the Transkei. The hon. member for East London (North) pointed out yesterday that that day, the 21st birthday of our coming into office, was a great day for the National Party.

Twenty-one years ago, at this precise hour of the day, the death knell sounded for the United Party throughout South Africa, and even then we were able to see what the tendency was. Since we are to-day expressing a word of congratulation to this Party for what it has accomplished in 21 years, let us also, for a few moments, look at what the position in 1948 was. The hon. member for East London (North) asked what has been accomplished during these past 21 years by this Party, and what the position is to-day. He said that today, instead of apartheid, we had a large-scale infiltration of non-Whites into the white areas, and that there was theft, murder and mayhem. That is what he said, and he pointed out how the tariffs on policies were increasing. Sir, let us think back for a moment and ask ourselves what the position in 1948 was. I want to state here that our white areas have not become blacker since we came into power 21 years ago. The position to-day is no worse than the position we inherited when we came into power. Let us for example take Cape Town where many of these members were living at the time. What was the situation in Cape Town in 1948 when we took charge of matters? Mr. Chairman, can you still remember what deplorable conditions prevailed along the national road near Kensington? What was the position in Bellville North? We had locations and squatters’ camps there. What a threat did this not represent for the Whites, day and night, who lived in that immediate neighbourhood! Sir, what were the conditions prevailing at places like Windermere not like; what conditions were not prevailing in all the squatters camps which we at that time had in Cape Town? What is the position to-day?

To-day we have proper, orderly accommodation for our non-Whites, for our Bantu in Cape Town, just as we are finding it throughout South Africa to-day. These people are being properly accommodated. Priority No. 1 was the removal of the non-Whites from the white areas, their proper accommodation, providing them with work here, and finding work in their homelands for those who were unable to find work here. During these past 21 years we have been supplying these people with proper, orderly accommodation, and a large percentage of them are economically active here. Let us admit that there is still a number of non-Whites in our white areas who are unemployed. I want to admit that quite probably it is people of this kind who are responsible for the theft and other crimes committed in these areas. But what are the United Party controlled city councils doing to help this Party to eliminate these evils and to remove these people from the white areas? Sir, when we try to pass legislation here for the purpose of improving these conditions, we get nothing else but opposition and reproaches and agitation from that side of the House, including the hon. member for Houghton. Sir, let us go further: If one travels through South Africa to-day, what is the immediate impression one gains as far as accommodation for the Bantu is concerned? One gains the impression of orderliness. Proper order was created out of the chaos which we inherited from the United Party in 1948. Take a city such as Johannesburg. What deplorable conditions did we not find there in 1948.

Was it not necessary for the Government —I want to lay this at the door of the United Party again to-day—to place a resettlement Act on the Statute Book in order to clean up the places such as Sophiatown and Martindale, and parts of Alexandra? To-day more than 15,000 Bantu families have already been removed from the white areas of Johannesburg and resettled in areas such as Meadowlands and Orlando. That is what has been achieved during the past 21 years. Sir, I lived in Johannesburg, and in those areas prior to 1948. I can bear striking witness to what happened there. In areas such as Westdene, Newlands and Vrede-dorp, Mayfair and Braamfontein, one did not dare show one’s face outside at night time. In 1948, 21 years ago yesterday, I myself fought an election in Fordsburg, and how many houses in Fordsburg did I not walk into where Whites and non-Whites were living together; where Whites and Bantu were living next to each other? It was for that reason that this National movement of the National Party in 1948 rejected the United Party Government. Sir, let us cast our minds back therefore and ask ourselves what would have happened if we had not taken charge of matters in 1948.

The country would have flourished.

My prediction is that not one of those non-white black spots in Johannesburg would have been cleared; my prediction is that there would have been a Moses Kotane sitting here in this House; that there would have been a Sobukwe sitting here; that we would have had a Marais Steyn, Helen Suzman and Abraham Fisher and his kindred spirits sitting here, but I would not have been here. I would have had in me a spirit of rebellion which would have put me six feet under the ground or behind iron bars. We are grateful that we are able to state to-day that we have a National Party Government and a Minister such as this one who is doing everything in his power to establish an orderly society in South Africa.

Sir, we have just heard the hon. member for Benoni making his preliminary speech for the next election.

He is fighting his nomination contest already.

I can very well believe he will have to fight a nomination contest. Sir, yesterday marked the 21st anniversary of this Government’s assumption of power, and when we look at their policy to see what has been accomplished by the Department of Bantu Administration, which is administered by one Minister and assisted by two half Ministers, we find that very little progress has been made. Sir, the hon. member for Benoni has just mentioned Cape Town. He spoke about Windermere and Bellville North. If the hon. member will take a helicopter and fly over the Cape Flats and look at Guguletu and the other Bantu townships, he will see that what has really happened is that the Bantu have been moved from one slum to a new slum. There are still many many Bantu living in the bush. One need only go to Elsies River to see what is happening there.

And Qua Mashu.

Sir, do not let the Government tell us that they are solving the Bantu problem in this country, because they know that they cannot solve it. If they persist with their ideological policy, then they cannot solve this problem. The hon. the Minister is the representative in this House of 12 or 13 million Bantu in this country. What consultation takes place with those Bantu before legislation affecting them is brought to this House? None. The Bantu in this country have very little or no say; they are pushed from pillar to post, and nobody can deny the fact that the Bantu form the economic backbone of the country. We have been told here that our cities and towns have been getting whiter since the Nationalists came into power. Sir, we know that that is not so. As a result of this Government’s so-called policy of establishing Bantu homelands, the industrialists to-day are tied up with all sorts of red tape. The cost to industrialists of complying with all this red tape must be enormous; I do not think the cost can be worked out, just as it is impossible to calculate the earnings of the Bantu in the Bantu areas. It is impossible to calculate the labour cost of an industry which is based on migratory labour. The Government refuses to face the fact that the Bantu are in this country. There is nothing that they can do about it. Their ideal of moving the Bantu into Bantu areas and of having an isolated white area is just so much rubbish. Sir, we in the Western Cape have suffered as a result of the Government’s policy of moving the Bantu to the Bantu homelands; We in the Western Cape have been used as a policy guinea-pig in this connection. What happens when these Bantu are returned to their homelands? As my hon. friend on this side has already pointed out, there is no work for them there. We in the Cape, however, have to suffer because we can not get Bantu labour. We were told here the other day by the Minister of Economic Affairs that there are insufficient Coloureds to meet all our labour requirements. We must, therefore, bring Bantu labour into the white areas, but before we can bring them in, we have to comply with a lot of red tape. Unfortunately we do not have the powers which the Minister of Railways has to bring in as much Bantu labour as he requires for the Railways. When industrialists want to bring Bantu into the Western Cape, they are required to provide housing for them. Sir, as I was saying, the Bantu in the Western Cape are pushed all over the place and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot give the employers of Bantu in the Western Cape some sort of relief. Let us have a little more streamlining; let the Minister bring his policy into line with the facts; let him recognize the fact that there are not sufficient Coloureds available to meet all our labour requirements. Then, Sir, I would like to make an appeal to him to do something about streamlining the local Bantu administration offices in the Western Cape. We have an administration office adjacent to the large Bantu townships, and then we have another office in Observatory to house the officers of the Bantu Commissioners Administration Department. This office is adjacent to a white area. Sir, the Bantu have to oscillate between the Bantu townships and this particular office while there is no transport for them. I looked at the Estimates in vain this year to find out whether the Minister is going to have a new building constructed to house his officers because he has to vacate his present offices in 1970. I find from correspondence that I have had with the City Council that he has had a piece of ground since 1963 on which to build new offices.

It is no longer acceptable.

At any rate, there is ground available and I am fairly certain that the Council will co-operate. The Minister should at least do something to make it unnecessary for the Bantu to have to walk miles from one township to another in order to have their affairs attended to. This is an urgent matter, and I should like the hon. the Minister to give it his attention. Finally, I would like to repeat what I have said earlier, and that is that I would like the Minister to go into the question of Bantu labour in the Western Cape to see whether he cannot streamline the position, reduce the present restrictions and make it a little bit easier for these people. I want to ask him to soft-pedal on this question of endorsing Bantu out of the white areas to the Bantu homelands where there is no work for them.

I am rising specifically to react to a few statements made here by the hon. member for Hillbrow which had a bearing on my constituency, Randburg. Sir, a totally misleading statement was made here alleging that it was Government policy that domestic servants were not allowed or were not welcome in the urban areas. It is the general policy of this Government and also of the local authority at Randburg to condone domestic servants, within the framework of the policy of this Government, on the express condition that they should be there legally. The Randburg situation to which reference was made here arose as a result of the actions on the part of the local authority on an occasion when there were 2,400 illegal domestic servants living in Randburg; and in order to prove that the hon. member’s statement is completely mistaken and has only political motives only. I just want to mention the fact that we paid a personal visit to Pretoria and asked the Department to apply this Act—and after all, an Act is made to be applied—in a reasonable way and to grant a slight extension of time. What was the result of that? This evening there are less than 400 of the 2,400 illegal Bantu domestic servants left, and there is order and satisfaction in Randburg. This is how one applies a national policy, in a reasonable and orderly fashion. Recently, at the Sabra Congress, the hon. the Deputy Minister stated unequivocally and in very plain terms that it had never been the policy of this Government to prohibit domestic servants. What the Government is very concerned about is the unnecessary illegal nocturnal sojourning in the back-yards. But the most interesting aspect of all is the following as far as my hon. colleague for Hillbrow is concerned, and his satellites in Randburg, and now there is a shock awaiting him. Do you know, Sir, that the entire agitation was aimed at making political propaganda. It was announced in the Press that I had supposedly been invited to attend a protest meeting at a specific school in regard to the domestic servant problem, and that this meeting had been set down for 22nd November, and that an official invitation had supposedly been sent to me by the satellite of the hon. member for Hillbrow on the local City Council, the U.P. (Sap) representative. But do you know what the truth is, Sir? The invitation never reached me and after I had objected in public, the invitation reached me on 30th December, after he had received the fright of his life. Is that morality in politics; is that honesty? But they have already plucked the fruits of such conduct, among their own people as well. After their first attempt had failed and we had taken a firm grip on the situation, the hon. member for Hillbrow held another protest meeting in the Ridgway Hotel and they advertised that there would be an attendance of 5,000, and do you know, Sir, they were unable to hold a meeting as a result of the attendance. Their incitement in regard to the domestic servant problem did not even exist any more. This is implementation of policy. I want to give him the assurance that he and his followers will keep their peace for always in Randburg now, and this politicking merely does him and his tiny circle of verkrampte U.P. representatives a great deal of harm. They can comfort themselves with that as long as they want to, but the intelligent electorate of our urban areas know what the policy is; they know in what they can have confidence, and they know how this situation, the Bantu problem in our urban areas, is being dealt with by a Minister and a Department that know what they want and in which direction they want to go.

Before I reply to the hon. member who has just sat down, there are a few questions I want to ask the hon. the Minister in regard to the Budget figures. We find it impossible to get answers on policy matters and therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions so that his staff can give him the answers. Looking at the expenditure on page 166, I notice that in most of the social welfare items there are big reductions in expenditure. It starts off with allowances, presents and rations to chiefs, headmen, etc., and then it goes on to Item H, Pensions and Ex gratia Assistance to Needy Bantu, where there is a reduction of almost R1.5 million. Then we go on to child welfare, where there is also a reduction. Under N, Settlements for Aged, Indigent and Unfit Bantu, there is a reduction of R93,000, and in the subsidies for general welfare and co-ordinating services there is a reduction of R58,000. I want to ask the Minister why there are all these major reductions in the expenditure for this year. There is probably a good reason for it.

May I reply to you now?

No, you can get up later. One thing that worries me is this reduction in the amount for the settlement for aged, indigent and unfit Bantu. I raised this matter before. The surplus appendages in the urban areas are to be returned to the Reserves and we know that Ministers are always bragging about the Bantu who are returning to the Transkei, but there is not a single old-age home in the Transkei. There is no place for the aged to go to in the Transkei. I have written to the Transkei Department of the Interior about it, and they say there is no home for the Bantu aged. I want to ask the Minister this. In endorsing out the surplus appendages, what happens to the old and indigent Bantu who have to go back to the Transkei? I also want to ask the Minister this. In a recent Gazette I see that a donation is being made of all the movable property belonging to the Government and to the Provincial Council to the Transkei Government. What is this movable property which is being handed over? If the province has to hand over all its movable property, are they going to be reimbursed by the Government in any way? Why should the taxpayers of the Cape Province have to pay for the policy of the Government in regard to these independent homelands? Typical of what has happened is that the Cape taxpayer has had to pay for a school for Whites at Flagstaff, built just a few years ago, and there are more lavatories in that school than children. [Interjections.] The Cape taxpayer had to pay for that. In this debate we endeavoured to get replies from the Government on certain questions of policy. We asked these questions because of the disquiet in the country as to whether the Government intended carrying out its policy. The questions were asked again this afternoon by the hon. member for East London (North), in regard to granting independence to the Bantu homelands. The Minister has not replied. He has ignored that question, and I want to ask him now before the debate closes whether he will get up and reply and say whether it is still the policy.

We do not change our policy every few weeks. [Interjections.]

You have changed your policy so often that nobody knows what it is. As far as that Deputy Minister is concerned, when he first started off I thought he was going to do quite well in the Department, because he has always appeared an intelligent man who had a good education overseas and we thought he would be “verlig”, but what do we find now? Every time he talks he puts his foot into it, and what surprises me is that he repeats his errors. Earlier this Session he spoke about the 1,644,777 Bantu who are “enkellopendes”. He has quoted that figure twice; he has quoted it again in this debate. I want to know where he gets that figure from.

From the Department.

But I want to know how that figure is arrived at. Is it only for the urban areas, or does it include the farms? What areas does it include? Then he tells the people at Newcastle that if the United Party got into power we would have to provide accommodation for the wives and families of all these “enkellopendes” and taking five to a family we would have to supply accommodation for 8 million people. We have dealt with this before and we have asked him where the 8 million are to come from. There are not 8 million Natives in the Reserves. Where are they to come from?

From the farms and the Bantu homelands.

Those “enkellopendes” he talks about, are they women as well as men?

They are single persons.

The Deputy Minister does not seem to know whether it is men as well as women. It is like his figure in regard to national income and per capita income, which on one occasion he said was R105 and which I now understand is R108. It has gone up now. In five days it has gone up by R3. [Interjections.] The Deputy Minister spoke about the per capita income, and when we queried it he went out and when he came back he said no, it was not per capita; it was per earner.

No. I said I would explain it, and I explained it this afternoon.

It stands in his Hansard. The Deputy Minister then corrected it and said it was not per capita but per earner. We asked him what the difference was, and he came back this afternoon and said it was per capita and de jure. But he will not tell us what is meant by de jure. All we can gather is that it must be every African in the country because according to the Government every African in the country, no matter where he lives, belongs to some homeland; he has some association with it, by way of connections with some people or language. Is that not right? The Minister nods his head and says it is right.

I did not nod my head.

Mr. Chairman, I do not blame the Minister for being so quick to correct a wrong impression. [Interjections.] He is not going to be saddled with the idiosyncrasies of the hon. the Deputy Minister! The Deputy Minister is now telling us that the income of the African population is R108 per capita of the Bantu population. It must be so, and then he says that is the income of the homelands. What utter nonsense! The people who are earning most money do not live in the homelands and do not spend their money in the homelands. They live in the urban areas like Johannesburg and they are permanently urbanized and they spend their money there. The money is not even going to the homelands. But we have to put up with this type of nonsense from the Deputy Minister. We asked him about the development of the homelands, and I have told him so often that I do not want to know the number of dams built or the mileage of furrows ploughed, or how many fences have been put up; we want to know what employment is being provided there, how many factories you are erecting. But they keep quiet. They get up time and again and repeat the old stuff we are so used to. But the question is how many factories are they building, and what industrial development has taken place in the homelands, and what accommodation is being given to the African in the homelands, and how many more are being employed there. Until they answer that question, and until they are able to convince their own critics on that point, they will not succeed in explaining their policy. [Time expired.]

I am deeply grateful that eventually, after three days, reference was at last made to votes in this book. That is why I am rising immediately to furnish a brief reply to the hon. member for Transkei. The fact that there is a decrease in the votes on social services, to which he referred, is attributable to one phenomenon only, i.e. that under the new dispensation, from 1st April, Bantu authorities will appropriate moneys for this purpose from their own estimates, and no longer from the Trust Account. The moneys are no longer going to them under Sub-Head N, but under another sub-head. The authorities are spending it on homes for the aged, and it is no longer taking place directly under Sub-Head N. The hon. member will find this phenomenon in a whole series of these sub-heads. This concerns chiefly the Tswana and the Ciskei authorities. As far as South-West is concerned, the same phenomenon occurs, although under other sub-heads or votes. As far as provincial property is concerned it was agreed at the time, when the Transkei Constitution was drawn up, that certain movable property which the province had used and for which the province was responsible could be transferred to the Transkeian Government for work which was now going to be undertaken by the Transkei, in the same way as movable property belonging to the Department and of the Trust. This took place in terms of an agreement which was concluded at the time with the province. I cannot furnish a complete list of the property, but there is all kinds of movable property, for the most part road-building machinery, I take it. That is the most important work the province previously undertook there. The province is no longer responsible for all the roads, although it is responsible for certain roads. In any case, it is movable equipment of this nature which has been transferred to the Transkei.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 31,—Bantu Education: Special Education and Educational Services: Eastern Caprivi Zipfel area, R515,000, Bantu Education Account, R39,426,000, and S.W.A. Vote 15,—Bantu Education, R2,300,000:

I am merely standing up to announce that this Loan Vote will be dealt with by the hon. the Deputy Minister, and not by me. Since I am on my feet, I hope that you, Mr. Chairman, will allow me, since the House is now in Committee, to point out that, firstly, as far as Bantu education is concerned, there is, after the reshuffle which took place, a new Deputy Minister. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister has, in this short space of time, earned his spurs to such an extent and proved his competence in this work so thoroughly that hon. members opposite, who perhaps begrudged him the appointment, simply have to endure it now. He will in due course prove to an even greater extent his competence for this work.

Secondly, I want to avail myself of this opportunity of bidding the new Secretary for Bantu Education a formal welcome. He took over the post after Parliament went into recess last year. Dr. Van Zyl is probably not unknown to hon. members. He is known especially to the Department as well as to the Bantu nations of South Africa. He is an excellent choice as Secretary for Bantu Education, because he grew up among the Bantu and was subsequently employed as a teacher among the Bantu, and after that became an inspector. Now he has progressed to the highest rung, i.e. Secretary of the Department of Bantu Education. I think the Department, our country, and above all the Bantu, whose interests are concerned here, will benefit greatly by the fact that we have a man of such top-notch calibre as Dr. Van Zyl to take charge of this Department. I can assure hon. members that he, just as other officials of my Department, will always be prepared and willing to help them in the interests of the matter we are serving.

Naturally we on this side of the House associate ourselves with the remarks made by the hon. Minister on the assumption of office of a senior member of his Department. Whether we are able to associate ourselves with the remarks he made about his Deputy Minister is, however, another matter. From what I have heard here to-day he appears to me rather like the Earl of Northumberland’s son. Harry Hotspur’s spur is cold. He has had ill luck.

After the very warm debate on Bantu Administration and Development, we now come into the calm waters of Bantu Education. We are all agreed that Bantu Education should be well financed, that Bantu Education should be a success in this country, that the Bantu should be well educated. There is no disagreement. Our motives are not always the same. According to our policies, we have differences. There is a section of the House that thinks that on humanitarian grounds the Bantu should be educated, as UNESCO said, “So that he can realize the full importance of his own personality, be educated to his full potential”. That is one point of view. Another point of view is that the Bantu child should be educated so that he will be able to take his place in the economic system of South Africa. Then, of course, there is a third view, which hon. members on the other side of the House hold, that the Bantu should be educated so that he will be able to go back to the land of his parents and grandparents. He is taught that that would be the new substitute for the old idea of heaven, that there he will achieve the greatest happiness of all. There is a happy land, far, far away. He is not being educated for the community in which he lives here in our part of the country; he is being educated for another community.

Now, Sir, we are all agreed that they should be educated. There has been a great deal of interest in Bantu education over the last 12 months. As a matter of fact, an important body, the South African Institute of Race Relations, had a special conference called to discuss Bantu education. Some of the men who participated were men of the calibre of Dr. Eiselen, Dr. Malherbe, Dr. Nkomo and others. They realize, of course, the importance of Bantu education to this country. I did not attend the conference, but I have read some of the papers. The answer to the problems that they postulated there are the answers that we have been giving here for a number of years. The answer is simply one word, finance. They have not sufficient money.

Having come to the question of finance, the hon. the Minister said a few minutes ago that members had not spoken on the Vote before them. I should like to say a word or two about the Vote before us, the Bantu Education Vote as a separate account. I have never heard any justification for having a separate account. Why Bantu education cannot be part of the general Vote of Bantu Administration and Development, I do not know. We do it with regard to Coloured Affairs and Indian Affairs. Why they should be separated, perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister can explain. I think by this time they should have changed their minds. Now let us have a look at this account. The Bantu Education Account has an estimated revenue of R26 million. I give the statistics to three significant figures. The estimated expenditure is R39½ million. Well, let us go a little further. We have an income of R26 million and an expenditure of R39.4 million. We are told by the Auditor-General at the bottom of the page that there is a deficit in the Bantu Education Account, which they make good by borrowing from the Loan Account. It is a deficit of R13.4 million. So it is a simple calculation to add R13.4 million and R6.6 million and find a deficit of R20 million. Here we have an account before us, budgeting for a deficit in the account of R20 million. It is quite unknown in any other account. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to explain that to us. That is my first point.

But there are other points. We know what the contributory amounts are. There is a pegged amount of R13 million, and then another pegged amount of R11 million, altogether R14½ million, pegged by the Government. I should like to say that that R11 million was an afterthought after the establishment of the university colleges. But they are spending very much more than R11 million on the Bantu colleges. Let us have a look at the account. We see in the account as regards the Bantu university colleges that this year they are budgeting to spend R2,740,000. But they contribute only R11 million. Last year it was R2¼ million. Again they contributed only R11 million. Therefore, the rest of the Bantu Education Account, the schoolchildren, had to make that amount good. That is my first criticism.

Now, Sir, I come to this vexed question of the pegged amount of R13 million which was pegged in 1956. We were told in 1956 that that was the total amount that would be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Any money in addition to that would come from Bantu taxation. That was our information and we worked on it. Now, R13 million 12 years ago was quite a different sum of money from R13 million to-day. I tried to put that idea across last year when we discussed this Vote. I did not have any success. When the hon. the Deputy Minister of that time, an enthusiastic, swashbuckling Deputy Minister, replied, he avoided this. He took avoiding action. He spoke about other matters very enthusiastically. If we wish to be reasonable and give the same amount in the value of money today, what should that R13 million of 12 years ago be? Well, I despaired of reasoning with the Department of Bantu Education. I therefore went to the Minister of Finance. I made that the topic of my Budget speech. I showed, by compounding annually at depreciation in the value of money of 2½ per cent, what the amount should be to-day. But the hon. the Minister of Finance said that 2½ per cent was too high. Then I suggested 2¼ per cent. He seemed to be prepared to accept that. A rate of 2.3 per cent has been given by one of the economic experts of a bank. I am not going to argue about that. I know that the hon. the Minister of Transport has agreed in paying pensions to add 2 per cent per annum to make good the increase in the cost of living and the depreciation in the value of money. I met the head of a big business firm the other day, who said that they add 3 per cent per annum. So one can have 2½ per cent or 2¼ per cent. Two and a half per cent may be too high; I do not think it is. What should the amount be to-day? Not R13 million, but R17½ million. That is a 2½ per cent depreciation in the value of money. What would it be if we take a lower figure? Supposing we take 2¼ per cent, it should be at least R17 million. What do we give them? R13 million again. But that is not all. Throughout these 12 years, every year the amount has been accumulating. All these years they have been deprived of the amounts they should have had. Now, Sir, of how much have they been deprived? I take the lower figure of 2¼ per cent. They have been deprived of R25 million over these years. That is how we finance the Bantu Education Account.

Well, the situation is rather desperate. Last year I raised the matter and the hon. the Minister replied to me as follows—

R3.7 million.

This is in Hansard of last year, column 7269. Now, Sir, has he done it?

Yes.

Where is it? It is not in the Account. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Kensington referred to a conference, which took place at the beginning of the year, where the whole matter of finance was dealt with. The Bantu Education Conference, to which the hon. member referred, was arranged by “The Institute of Race Relations”. I also read reports in connection with the proceedings of that conference and the speeches which were made there. It struck me that the whole spirit and atmosphere attested to the fact that the attitude of these previously fierce opponents of Bantu Education, as controlled by the Department, had changed in respect of that education framework. It is really gratifying that these fierce opponents of the Government’s Bantu Education policy have seen the light. The hon. member for Kensington’s speech dealt mainly with financial matters. At the moment we are discussing a Bill in connection with Bantu taxation and we also know, as the hon. member must admit, that the Government has always been very sympathetic towards the financial aspect of Bantu education. The hon. member tried to make little calculations to indicate how much Bantu education had lost over the years as a result of monetary depreciation. We have now also reached a stage where the Bantu as such must produce a quid pro quo. By means of this legislation the Bantu will really have an opportunity to produce a realistic quid pro quo by paying his tax regularly. I think that Bantu Education will benefit greatly in this way. All the money which is collected by way of Bantu taxation, as we all know, is spent directly on Bantu Education.

I should just briefly like to associate myself with what the hon. the Minister said in congratulating Dr. Van Zyl, the new Secretary for Bantu Education. He has been a personal acquaintance of mine for a long time and in the course of a number of years I have watched his progress. We believe that in him Bantu Education has obtained a person whose services will prove very beneficial to education as such. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the editorial staff of the Bantu Education Journal very warmly for the fine articles which appear in that journal, particularly the informative articles which appear editorially in both languages. I usually read those articles with great interest. They are a reflection of what is taking place on the Bantu Education front. They show us once again that Bantu Education has nothing to hide. What the Bantu Education Department is doing is revealed to the public in this journal. In the latest few issues there were particularly informative statistics in connection with examinations, Std. X results, number of schools, numbers of Bantu pupils, teachers, etc. For us, and for someone with an interest in education as such, this is all very informative.

Then I should also like to refer to the annual report for the financial year 1967. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, who is dealing with this Vote, please to bring it to the attention of the Department and to request that this annual report appear earlier. The report is about a year late. It is necessary for such a report to be made available to us at an earlier stage. I should like to congratulate the Department on this annual report which was tabled. From this report I have noticed that the Department is keeping pace with the activities of other education departments. New courses were introduced during the year. I shall now quote a portion from page 2 of this report. It reads as follows—

This is, of course, in respect of primary education. Now I just want to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that one is very gratified about the Department’s intentions as set out here. But I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister how much progress has been made by the Department with the establishment of these “core” syllabuses to which reference is made here, i.e. “core” syllabuses for the primary school.

On page 10 of this report reference is made to the training of Bantu teachers. It is stated that after a thorough investigation by a departmental committee it was decided to abolish the then existing lower and higher primary training courses and to replace these by one course for the training of primary school teachers. This course was to be introduced at the beginning of 1969. The objective appears to be, and I believe that this is a good thing, to equip the teachers better for their task and at the same time also to increase the status of the Bantu teaching profession. Now I should like to ask the Deputy Minister how much progress has been made with the idea of introducing only one course for the training of Bantu primary school teachers.

Bantu education is striking proof to me of the success of the Government’s policy of separate development. During the past decade it has been the Government’s object to establish all educational services, for the Bantu who are not location-orientated, in the Bantu homelands. This was done and is being done so that educational services in the Bantu homelands can be of economic significance and can also serve as a symbol of progress for those Bantu peoples. The object of the Government in that connection is, of course, to establish, for each of the recognized Bantu population groups, an individual education department in the homeland, where Bantu officials and teaching staff under white guidance can gradually be taught to take over this responsibility themselves as time passes. In order to affect this in due course there are, of course, additional policies which are being applied and maintained. I should like to mention a few. All central teacher training institutions in white areas, except two, have already been transferred to the homelands. New training schools are being established in the homelands. Primary schools are being provided in the Bantu and white area, according to the needs. Secondary schools in the white area are being restricted to only one school per 3,200 families. On the other hand, secondary schools are being approved for any community in the Bantu homeland, according to the needs, and where it is at all justified. This all adds up to the fact that, in due course, each tribal area will get at least one secondary school which, initially, will afford training up to the Junior Certificate examination, and which will develop into a fully-fledged secondary school at a later stage. Technical and trade schools are only being provided in the homelands. But the technical schools are still being maintained in the three industrial centres where they exist, i.e. in Pretoria, Johannesburg and Port Elizabeth. What is very interesting is that school hostels are not being allowed in the Bantu areas. Financial provision is, in fact, being made for such institutions in homelands. Therefore, in 1968 alone, for example, 25 hostels were erected by means of State funds. Several of the tribes have also contributed from individual tribal funds in order to erect these hostels. Accommodation bursaries are being made available to Bantu pupils who want to live at those hostels in order to study at the schools. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall, during my speech, refer to the annual report of the Department of Bantu Education for the calendar year 1967. I am sorry that it is only the 1967 report, but the report for the year 1968 is not available, as it was in the case of the Department of Higher Education. However, I recognize the colossal task which faces officials when drafting such a report. They are drafting a report for the whole of South Africa, and it covers thousands of schools and tens of thousands of teachers. It is a great task. The figures I shall be using are taken from the latest report of this department, which we received comparatively recently. I hope the Deputy Minister will not tell us that the position has changed from 1967 to 1969 and that our arguments are not valid. We do not want that criticism. Let us fix our thoughts on this report.

I shall make one more reference to the financial side of this report. The second paragraph, entitled “sources of revenue”, reads inter alia:

The amount of money they are receiving through taxation is not increasing. I listened to the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development yesterday, when he introduced his Bantu Taxation Bill. He said that R11.3 million is being received in taxes to-day, and that, as a result in the change of the method of collection, R11 million will still be received. I may say that I regard that Bill merely as a measure for bringing about a change in the method of collection. Nothing more will therefore be forthcoming as a result of that Bill. I have mentioned these financial shortcomings in regard to Bantu Education. What are the results of this policy? Before I quote figures from this report, I should like to pay tribute, as I did last year, to the splendid statistical section of this report. It is really a pleasure, when discussing education, to find such an excellent statistical section in this report. I am not speaking of the observations which are made, but the statistics are excellently presented. This is very well-done. I think the officers who are in charge of this work should be congratulated.

Let us take the schools first of all. Whenever we discuss Bantu Education or whenever visitors come to this country, there are two barrels we fire off with our shotgun. Firstly, we point out that we have 2 million children at school. And then we ask: “Where else in Africa can this be said to be the case?” Well, where else in Africa is there a Government such as ours? Here these people are a part of our community. In other parts of Africa they have had colonial rule. We do not have colonial rule. We are now speaking of our own citizens. The other point which is made is: “Have you seen our university colleges? Have you seen our buildings?” These are the two items of propaganda which are used.

I want to go a little further. Let us take the question of schools. I should like to quote some statistics in this connection. There are 7,670 schools, of which 480 are private schools. The private section of Bantu Education is very small nowadays. Of these schools 4,250 have double sessions. In other words, one teacher takes two classes. He takes one class in the early part of the day, and the other class in the second part of the day. That is unfortunate. Yet 55 per cent of the schools are in that position.

Now I come to pupils. As I have said, we have 2 million pupils. We are very proud of that. There are about 82,000 in church schools and private schools, but that is a small percentage. I shall not quote the figures for Std. VI and Form III, because they are internal examinations. For the purposes of comparison, we must use an external examination. I shall use matriculation here. We are told that great progress is being made in this regard. I am not disputing that. I merely want to quote the figures in this connection. Approximately 2,000 pupils wrote matriculation in 1967, of whom rather fewer than 1,000 passed. However, let us say that a thousand of them passed. What is 2,000 when we have 2 million pupils? It amounts to one pupil in a thousand writing matriculation. If only 1,000 pass, what percentage is that? One Bantu out of every 2,000 pupils has matriculated under this education system. We cannot build up a very strong education system on such a basis. However, that is what we have to build on.

I should like to go further. I now come to the pupils themselves. The figures in regard to pupils involved in double sessions are not as high as those relating to schools, which have double sessions. 700,000 pupils have double sessions, usually from sub-Standard A to Std. II. About 35 per cent of all pupils attend that type of school.

Now we come to the teachers. We all know of the problems regarding teachers. If one is going to build up an education system, the most important aspect is the teaching staff. This is even more important than buildings, because one can hire buildings, but one cannot obtain teachers in that way. I want to take the question of teachers. There are 32,256 teachers. The important question is: “Who pays for the teachers in this system of education?” 25,232 teachers are paid by the Government. This means that approximately 80 per cent of them are paid by the Government. What happens to the other 20 per cent? Believe it or not, the parents, these poor people, subscribe to pay for 15 per cent of all teachers. We do not have sufficient teachers or sufficient money, and these people are asked to subscribe to employ their own teachers in the schools with the consent of the department. Then there are a number in church schools, but I shall leave them out of reckoning. Altogether, teachers at church and private schools amount to about 5 per cent of the total number. These figures are correct to the nearest percentage. I do not want to give the detailed figures here. Of those teachers 20 per cent are completely unqualified. They do not even have a lower primary certificate. This is a poor state of affairs when one considers how large these classes are. The hon. the Chief Whip on that side, understands the problem. My professional friends in this Houe know the problem. How can they possibly cope with it? I want to ask this question: If the parents employ teachers because the department cannot provide them, do those teachers qualify for a pension? Do they subscribe to a pension fund, or are they kept outside the system? It is pretty hard on those people in the schools if they are not entitled to a pension. I remember when the Pension Act (Act No. 42 of 1966) went through. I remember it very well. The details of the pension scheme are not given in that Act. These are defined by regulation. We have now been discussing pensions for statutory bodies, and I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should follow the example of the hon. the Minister of Transport. For his non-Europeans he has a non-contributory annuity. He gives them pensions on a non-contributory basis.

Take the problem of the accountants in this department. Have the hon. the Minister and his department no sympathy for the accountants? The accountants of this department have to pay 25,000 teachers and provide funds for other purposes, and they have to run a pension fund. Really, this is out of the question. It is essential that the whole system of accountancy should be simplified.

Well, so much for the teachers. I now come to the parents. I think they are the important people. We know how this type of parent has to struggle. Let me read a question which was asked by the hon. member for Transkei last year. The question reads as follows:

The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development replied: R1½ million. They had raised R1½ million. I think it is scandalous to ask these people to do that. However, that is what they are asked to do. That is the first thing, but that is not all. These poor people were asked at one stage in the development of Bantu education: “Which will you have for your children—school feeding or education?” They took school feeding away from these children. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the matters which were touched upon by the previous speaker are administrative in nature. I would rather simply leave them to the hon. the Deputy Minister. We miss the quality of debating in this Vote which one would expect from the hon. Opposition and which one has reason to expect and the right to expect from them. I want to content myself with the single remark that there is a continual growth in the Department as regards schools, teachers, numbers of pupils and also as regards the reorganization within the Department, the creation of new senior posts and with the smoother running of the administration of the Department. We on this side of the House are frequently compelled simply to state our premises and then to elaborate further on that aspect which we have decided upon. This is what I should like to do now. We have to do this because of a lack of any stimulus towards anything else from the Opposition side.

With a view to the general policy in respect of homeland development it is a good thing that we are to view the entire spectrum of Bantu education in order to gain an overall picture of it before reflecting upon it. At present the Department is providing a full education programme for the Bantu population groups in South Africa from class I up to the end of university training. Whoever wants education can have it. The question I want to ask this afternoon is, how balanced is the final result of our education? What does the education pattern look like of those who have been through the education programme? We find from personal consideration that a large percentage of pupils are leaving school too soon. On the other hand, those receiving post-matriculation training form, in my opinion, a too high percentage of the total number of secondary pupils. I want to accuse the Opposition of continually complaining about, in their opinion, the too small numbers of students at our Bantu universities. They do this for propaganda purposes because they are not prepared to look at the entire pattern. In making those two statements, the danger lies, in my opinion, in the fact that one can err on the side of the creation of an intellectual elite, out of proportion to the Bantu population itself and also outside the general educational level of development of the Bantu. I am saying this now, specifically because I want to emphasize that we must not be obsessed with the numbers of students at our Bantu universities.

If, for example, the graduates at the universities cannot be economically assimilated— thusfar we accept that they can, in fact, be assimilated economically—this educated group can become detached from their own people.

I am now going to deviate slightly and gratefully focus attention on page 12, paragraph 5 of the Bantu Education Report. Reference is made there to the work which is being done by the psychological services division. We find that a sample of a little more than 63,000 standard 6 pupils from 1,535 schools sat for scholastic tests. 11,096 Form III pupils from 215 schools were tested scholastically; a sample of 1,311 Higher Primary Teachers’ Certificate students from 14 training colleges were also tested. Standardized tests were also carried out in collaboration with the National Bureau of Educational and Social Research. In collaboration with the education faculty the University of the North also offers courses in the application of standardized tests. We agree that the application of the tests, and in this case specifically scholastic tests alone, is not the end of the matter. The value of the tests lies in the application of the test results. Not only scholastic tests, but also interest tests and tests of skill, coupled to personality tests, must definitely be applied so that one can give a whole series of the tests and come to light with a comprehensive final result which is significant and has prognostic possibilities. I believe that at this stage, after the years of experience which they have, the Department should perhaps begin to move more in this direction.

Then, I think, we shall find that fewer pupils will be selected for universities for degree purposes. In any case, I want to plead that psychological tests, by way of admission tests, be introduced at all our Bantu universities in order to ensure that our Bantu students are also enrolled in the proper courses of study. This is very important, but it is also difficult, because students themselves do not like these types of tests. Their parents have fixed ideas. The old father may perhaps decide that his daughter must go to university so that she can be trained in social work. Nothing will cause him to deviate from that idea, whether it is good for her to do so or not. Secondly, I believe that more students will be enrolled at universities in specialized fields for diploma purposes. Thirdly, I believe that fewer students will be admitted to the general academic stream at school. In short, I believe that greater differentiation will come about after the application of a full battery of scholastic tests, interest tests and tests of skill. I believe that this diversified secondary and post-matriculation training will yield better results for the promotion of our policy programme. We need more technically qualified Bantu to-day for our development programme as academics. The commercial field has also been neglected far too much in the past. Old attitudes, for example that Bantu girls ought not to type, still prevailed; the attitude was that it is not traditionally individual to their nature as a people that they should do typing, secretarial and clerical work.

The picture I am trying to sketch is that we now have a comprehensive Bantu education programme; we have a fine generally formative primary school course. We also have fine differentiated post-matriculation courses. But in between these comes the high school stage which is solely dominated by the academic course of study. This is where the difficulty lies. I concede that the problem is being experienced as a result of the requirements of the matriculation board in respect of university admission. This is so. But if it is so, the necessity for more technical and commercial schools at well-distributed places has recently become pertinently evident. These schools must particularly be established near border industry areas and new industrial growth points. I just want to mention that the Richard’s Bay complex is such a new growth point. For a long while there has been a very urgent cry for a technical and commercial school in Reserve No. 5 so that Bantu boys and girls can qualify themselves for posts in that new industrial complex. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Zululand will understand that I have some matters of my own to raise. I want to raise something I have raised before, namely to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I am firmly of the conviction that the emphasis which is placed on primary school education rather than on secondary school education, is a grave mistake, and that it is going to have very serious consequences for our country. Judging by the Department’s own statistics, by 1970 it is estimated that there will be 2.650,000 Bantu school children, by 1975, nearly 3½ million, and more than 4¼ million by 1980. These are enormous numbers of children and of course one is very glad that more of them are going to school. The Department states that for the first time in history, the number of pupils under the control of the Department of Bantu Education, exceeded the 2 million mark. That is excluding the Transkei, I presume. That is fine as far as it goes, but I think in many countries which have this problem of having millions of children who are illiterate and who obviously have to go to school, the decision has to be made whether the emphasis is to be placed on primary education for the masses, or to try and concentrate on obtaining secondary education for fewer children. Many experts are of the opinion, and I agree with them, that the intelligent thing to do ab initio is to concentrate on secondary education. I say this for the very simple reason that if one does not have people in secondary schools, one cannot provide the necessary teachers who ultimately are going to teach the masses of children who have to go to primary school.

I want to point out that we have a desperate need in this country to encourage more pupils to continue to higher education. One of the first requests I want to make to the hon. the Minister is to see to the provision of bursaries for pupils who can go on to senior secondary schools and, since it is the Government’s policy to locate these senior secondary schools only in the rural areas from now on in the homelands, to have included in these bursaries, boarding fees for promising students. Most parents cannot afford these additional expenses. The Department is pleased with itself because of the increasing number of students in the lower classes. I want to point out that the number of pupils in the higher classes is miserably low. According to its own statistics, only .18 per cent of the total number of pupils at school are in Std. IV, .1 per cent in Std. V and of all the students at school, something like .2 per cent are in teacher-training. Worst of all is the fact that out of the 300,000 odd children that entered Sub-Std. A in 1956, only 775, namely less than one-quarter of 1 per cent, matriculated in 1968. I want to point out that if this trend continues, we are going to find ourselves outstripped not only by Western countries, but also by other African countries.

Already countries like Zambia and Uganda are catching up on us and are indeed outstripping us in certain directions as far as education for Africans is concerned. Uganda, apart from having an excellent university of its own, has 2,500 students in overseas universities studying for degree purposes. I maintain, therefore, that the whole position as far as higher secondary education for African children is concerned, is very unsatisfactory. According to an expert, a former head of the Department of Education in Natal, namely Dr. McConky, the situation is deteriorating. In this regard I refer the hon. the Minister to an article which was recently published by Dr. McConky, specifically relating to the conditions of Bantu Junior Certificate examinations. Although the Minister was proud to tell us that 78 per cent of pupils writing J.C. had passed in 1963, an improvement of some magnitude over 1962, when only 57 per cent passed—and he gave us the reasons, namely, better books and equipment and stricter selection of pupils from Std. VI onwards and the fact that the class of 1963 was the first class which had had mother-tongue education from the beginning—this success story has not been repeated, as was pointed out by Dr. McConky. Last year only 66 per cent of the pupils who wrote Junior Certificate passed. The reasons given earlier on by the hon. the Minister do not, therefore, seem to obtain any more despite the screening, despite the mother-tongue education and despite the fact that presumably the improvement in books and in equipment has been maintained. Furthermore, although in 1963 there was a great improvement, 51 per cent of these passes were considered to be eligible for admission to the senior certificate, owing to the stricter screening. This represented a drop from the 57 per cent in the previous year. By last year this had dropped to 39 per cent of the passes. Only 39 per cent of those who passed Junior Certificate were considered eligible to go on to the Senior Certificate examination. One would have thought that since these pupils had already been carefully screened before going on to Junior Certificate, they would do much better than their predecessors when they got to the Senior Certificate examination, but in fact the figures of the last three years show that this was not so at all. In 1966, 56 per cent of the candidates passed the Senior Certificate; in 1967 this had dropped to 47 per cent and in 1968 it was 55 per cent; so that the over-all picture is pretty bad. I want to point out that despite 81 per cent passes in Std. VI last year, only 44 per cent got continuation passes, that is to say, were considered good enough to be admitted to the lowest class of secondary school. It seems to me that the whole question of secondary education therefore needs revision. I appreciate the efforts that are being made by the department to extend primary school education to as many children as possible, but I am perfectly certain that the emphasis, from now until 1980, when this enormous number of children are expected to be at school—under this new system of taxation presumably more schools will be forthcoming— should be on the provision of secondary school education and teachers. I feel it is absolutely essential that the department from now on should devote itself much more intensively to these aspects.

Then I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider the decision taken in respect of the closing of the night schools, the schools that were held here in the Cape Peninsula and on the Witwatersrand. Sir, this is a long, sad story which I know I am not going to have the time to tell, but, very briefly, the position is that the Government closed down these schools in the Cape. There used to be 14 of them. These schools provided adult education. The Government closed them down in 1967. These schools were started by dedicated white teachers, many of them retired. The Langa Junior School alone was attended enthusiastically by some 250 Africans per night who were very eager indeed to become literate, and indeed many of them eventually attained matriculation standard. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor told me last year when I raised this matter, that no difficulties would be placed in the way of genuine teachers who wished to obtain permission to go and teach inside these townships. He said that it was against Government policy for them to be taught in the white areas but that the teachers would be given permission to go into the Bantu areas. When the night school association applied—and they have a long and honourable reputation; they are genuine teachers—the application was turned down by the inspector. I ask the hon. the Minister if he will not reconsider this matter because the small efforts which are being made now by the African teachers are hopelessly inadequate. In any case, they are exhausted teachers, most of them having to cover the double sessions referred to by the hon. member for Kensington.

Mr. Chairman, when the congress of the South African Institute of Race Relations was in progress, and when I subsequently studied the reports, I wondered what the hon. member for Kensington would say about them. It was therefore interesting to-day to note that he simply touched lightly upon this aspect. I wonder if the hon. member remembers, in the years when the National Party Government began to take Bantu Education fully under its wing, what virulence emanated from that organization? That organization, is in actual fact, simply a concentrate of academics and quasi-academics who have, in the course of years, with the utmost virulence, been trying to extract all the so-called problems from the Bantu Education policy of the National Party in order to pedal them in the outside world. What was said at that congress proves how the National Party has, in fact, progressed tremendously in the field of Bantu Education. It was also interesting to be able to listen to the hon. member for Houghton, who made many strange remarks here this afternoon about education. I think that she, as an ex-lecturer at a university, will realize that a university, with all that that entails, cannot actually exist if the foundations of primary education are not fully and properly laid.

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

I want to say to the hon. member that in a society one cannot, especially if one wants to implant Western thinking upon Bantu communities to a certain extent, begin by establishing a university in that community; one must inevitably begin with primary education. I find it very strange that the hon. member came along here this afternoon and was actually critical of the fact that the National Party had specifically placed primary education, where one must actually begin, on so strong and trim a foundation. She quoted people here whom she described as experts; she did not mention one of them by name, but I strongly doubt whether she has read the works of educationists in connection with this matter. What she said here was no proof at all of her claim, but it was proof that our policy in respect of Bantu education is, in fact, very sound.

Mr. Chairman, the progress in the field of Bantu education is the proof of the sincerity of the National Party in leading the respective Bantu groups to independence. As far back as August, 1967 the Bantu were informed in the editorial column of the Bantu Education Journal that the establishment of tribal, regional and territorial authorities would grow to such an extent that the territorial authority of each population group must, in fact, receive greater responsibility and thereby be activated. In order to accomplish this, the authority had to be organized like a government, and it had to receive a government administration. This administration, or public service, as we normally call it, would consist of five Government Departments. It was said at the time that there would be a Department of Community Affairs, a Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Public Works, a Department of Finance and Economic Development, a Department of Justice and, what is important to us this afternoon, a Department of Education and Culture. This was elaborated upon in the editorial column. In the September, 1967 issue the following was, inter alia, written in the editorial column—

The column went on to state—

Mr. Chairman, it is very important, specifically here in the planning of the education, that the National Party should take into account the diversity which exists in the Bantu groups, and it is important that we lay down the education in such a way that it adapts to the respective ethnic and national units. Then the article goes on to state—

Sir, this was announced in 1967, but since then the position has not remained static. In the meantime, four territorial authorities have been established with partial self-government —Ovamboland, Ciskie, Tswana and South Sotho. Added to that there is, of course, the Transkei which has developed even further on the road to self-government. We may expect that other territorial authorities will also be established with these aforementioned departments. For each of these aforementioned territorial authorities, as the National Party planned, and promised the Bantu in advance, a flourishing education department with its own homeland head office has come into being. These education departments are independent departments which will be administratively independent, but professionally they will still be integrated with the central department of Bantu Education.

Mr. Chairman, at this stage one may also express one’s congratulation to the executive committee members who will be the political heads of those education Departments. I am thinking, for example, of Mr. Lennox Sebe of the Ciskei, Mr. M. Zetlogelo of the Tswana area and W. Kanyele of Ovamboland; unfortunately at the moment I do not have the other names at my disposal. One must congratulate these persons on the fact that they will be occupying very important positions. They will look after the education of the children of their respective ethnic groups. They are occupying important posts and I think that they are fully aware of this. The fact that there will be a white director at the head of such a homeland head office, assisted by a few white administrative officials, plus one or two senior inspectors, is also proof to these Bantu, who must now occupy these particularly responsible positions, that the white man still wants to maintain his guardianship in respect of the Bantu. He is maintaining it in such a way that he will always maintain the ethnic diversity which exists among the Bantu; in such a way that throughout his education policy he will recognize the traditional way of life of the Bantu, in such a way as to appreciate its inherent beauty, in such a way that, with respect, love and sympathy, and with every scientific principle at his command, he will implant the Western educational methods, standards and institutions in that aspect of the Bantu’s pattern of living, so that it will have the least possible detrimental effect upon their community life and so that they will grow quietly and normally from primary education, which is laid down firmly and correctly, to secondary education, and thence to tertiary education, thereby serving the whole Bantu community. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Rissik has referred to what he regards as the healthy state of Bantu education and he has detailed some of the plans, all of which fit in with his ideological concept and that of his party. But I suggest that he would do well to read the report of the S.A. Institute of Race Relations of their 1969 Bantu Conference. He would have a lot to digest in that report and there is much that would be of benefit to him.

But I want to come back to a remark made by the hon. the Deputy Minister, now the Minister of Community Development, in this Education Vote last year. He said in Column 6763, referring to the collection of taxes—

Now, we know that this particular tax is allocated to the Bantu Education Account and I want to ask this hon. Minister, in view of the fact that this particular account shows no increase but stands consistently at R10.5 million, when is it anticipated that this more efficient collection of taxes is likely to produce additional money for the Bantu Education Account?

Order! Bantu taxation was discussed on the Bill which is before Parliament, and the hon. member may not refer to that Bill as it is still under consideration by the House. The hon. member may raise the matter during the third reading of that Bill.

Very well, Sir. Then I want to refer to page 3 of the Bantu Estimates, where at the bottom of the page it is indicated that there are 43 extra female teachers in the employ of the department, and yet the total annual earnings have decreased by R8,000. I would like the Deputy Minister to give an explanation as to the reasons for that decrease in view of the fact that there are extra teachers. Then I want to ask the Deputy Minister why there has been such a large increase in financial assistance under Head E in connection with medical expenses. The amount this year is R40,000 and is a tenfold increase since 1967. Then I seek some information in regard to expenditure which has been shown in the past under Loan Vote Q. Where is it possible to ascertain the details in regard to schools and the expenditure to be allowed on schools in the forthcoming financial year?

Then I want to come back to the 1969 Conference on Bantu Education. It was indicated in the report which has come to hand that this is the first major public review of Bantu education since 1953. It is interesting to note that there were over 360 delegates there, representing more than 80 different organizations-representative of many aspects of education, of language groups and races, and present in an observing capacity were members of the Bantu Education Department. If I were asked to sum up briefly my reaction to the report, I would call it the A. B, C, D, of Bantu Education. The A is for the appreciation for B, the Bantu Education Department’s staff for the dedicated work they are performing with extremely limited finances and under difficult and frustrating circumstances. The C is for the concern that the speed of development is not in accord with present needs. The D is for the dismay at the curbs on progress which are due in the main to Government policy and ideology in formulating their education policy. This congress agreed to 60 resolutions. I believe that in their consideration of the whole aspect of Bantu education they were objective, because where they found that praise could be given they gave it. But what I find is alarming is the fact that of the 60 resolutions, only 11 expressed appreciation or tribute, while in 45 of the resolutions one came across terms like “strongly urges”, reference to “inadequacy”, “the Congress deprecates”, “expresses the need for”, it deplores; it pleads, it regrets and it recommends, and the whole trend seems to me to be towards the urgency of the need for some of these recommendations to be considered and accepted. Now I would like to ask the hon. the Minister, who I am sure in due course will receive a report from the members of his Department who attended the conference, whether he will take cognizance of some of the recommendations and whether he will in due course implement them.

Then I wish to deal with a very disturbing fall-out at farm schools. On the basis of information given by the Minister’s Department, we find that in the lower primary farm schools there were roughly 223,000 pupils, but in the higher primary schools the figure had dropped to approximately 30,000; so that the drop was in the ratio of seven to one. During the recess I had the opportunity of visiting a farm school situated in Northern Natal, and I had a very interesting discussion with the principal. He was a very fairminded man and he gave me the facts just as they existed. It was an interesting experience. In this particular school there was a total enrolment of 80; 40 of these pupils were in sub-standard A, but by the time we got to Std. 3, the total number of pupils enrolled was four, and this farm school had been operating for many years. So here we had a fall-out ratio of 20 in sub-standard A to one in Std. 3. I notice that in the overall figure of all the Bantu pupils at schools, the fall-out ratio in that particular range is approximately three to one; so it seems that the fall-out at farm schools is very much in excess of the normal. But what interested me was that when I asked the reason, the principal said: “You see, it is like this. These are the children of farm labourers and some of them earn as little as R24 per annum. They send their children to school, but the school committee laid down that they should wear some form of uniform, and when the parents are unable to meet the expense thereof they stop sending their children to school.” Sir, I would not be rash enough to suggest that the State should subsidize school uniforms, but I believe this matter is of sufficient importance to warrant some sort of investigation and possibly some directive to the school committee to indicate that education is more important to their children than uniforms. And I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the recommendations published in the report of the Education Congress. Recommendation 58 stresses this particular aspect, so it would seem that my experience was not an isolated one.

Then we came to the question of school books, and here I feel that the headmaster was very objective. He said that there had been an improvement in the supply of free books. But I want to come to a complaint I received from the Cradock constituency, from where someone wrote to say that a farm labourer was faced with a cost of R30 for books for his two children when they commenced their schooling at the beginning of this year.

Finally I want to refer briefly to the equipment at this farm school I visited. There were seven desks in which two children could sit and there were five which accommodated four children. They were very dilapidated. Some of them appeared to be home-made, but all in all, 34 children out of 80 could be seated when they attended to their lessons. [Time expired.]

First of all I want to express my thanks for the calm way in which this debate has been conducted up to now. I want to express the hope that the Opposition will like me better as Deputy Minister of Bantu Education than they liked me as Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. I also want to agree immediately with the hon. member for Kensington, i.e. where he said that all of us wanted the Bantu in South Africa to receive good education. This is most definitely the case, and I shall go far out of my way to do everything in my power, in view of the fact that I really take an intense interest in this subject, in order to do just that, in so far as it is physically possible and with the means at our disposal. Secondly, I want to add my congratulations to those of the hon. the Minister and other hon. members to our Secretary for Bantu Education, Dr. H. J. van Zyl. We know him as a very competent and dedicated person. In congratulating him, I also want to extend my sincere thanks to the department, and to him, for the extremely competent manner in which they are handling Bantu Education.

I should like to try to reply fully to all the questions put to me here, but with your permission, Sir, I want to say just a few words by way of introduction. Prof. Du Buisson, a distinguished visitor from Belgium and a person who has a good grounding in education, recently paid a visit to South Africa and spoke most highly of our Bantu education in the Republic, but he said amongst other things— and I should like to draw attention to this— that in regard to education he had questioned Bantu and Indians who held prominent positions in South Africa, and their views were briefly as follows: “The establishment of Black and Indian frameworks through parallel but to a large extent separate development, is the most favourable solution to the moral and intellectual development of their children as a result of separate Bantu education, and in the case of the Indians, separate Indian education.” Therefore, although we listened this afternoon to these question and misgivings raised by the Opposition, it must be stated here that the progress made in regard to Bantu education in this country over the past few years has been excellent, and there cannot be the slightest doubt about that. I know the Opposition have the best of intentions in saying that there are too few Bantu schools. I am not saying that there are enough, but I want to mention the fact that in 1968 there were as many as 9,551 Bantu schools in the Republic. There is a primary school within the reach of all Bantu children of school-going age. At the moment there are 370 secondary schools, and for the information of the hon. member for Houghton I want to say that these are not only situated in the Bantu homelands, but also in the white areas. My policy is indeed, as she said, to have more schools in the Bantu homelands. These schools take pupils on a daily basis or as boarders. Furthermore, I want to point out that over the past eight years approximately 300 new Bantu schools have been established every year. Between 20 and 30 Bantu schools are being established monthly in South Africa. I concede at once that quite a number of them are farm schools, and I also want to concede at once that we have a tremendous population explosion amongst the Bantu in South Africa, and the provision of education to such a large population certainly does create problems. It is true that some of these schools are overcrowded, and because of this population explosion and because of these overcrowded schools, the Department is going out of its way in exploiting all ways and means so as to do its best under the circumstances. In a moment I want to deal with the question of double sessions and private teachers and other methods which are being employed. We do not say that this is the best way in the world, but under the prevailing circumstances this is the best practical way. The indications are that the standards are good. Furthermore, the indications are that the Bantu in South Africa can boast of good education and that they are to an increasing extent beginning to realize this themselves.

I also want to reply to the charge that was made this afternoon, which has quite often been made in the past, that there are too few teachers. Teachers are being trained at 34 training schools and three universities. Primary school teachers receive two years’ training after Junior Certificate, and at present the rate of training is 2,000 Bantu teachers per year. Steps have already been taken to push this up to 3,000 Bantu teachers per year by 1972. The losses in this regard are negligible, because generally speaking married women carry on working. Unqualified teachers are also being used, a matter in regard to which I shall have more to say presently. The Bantu universities are already meeting a great need in this regard. I want to point out that as far as Bantu education is concerned, we are faced with the same problem which is being experienced in other departments, namely that the most sought-after candidates are being lured to positions outside the teaching profession, such as the S.A.B.C., newspapers or other positions in which it is possible for them to earn better salaries. I want to point out further that, in spite of the fact that we are not saying that this is the best that can be done in the world, it is nevertheless an outstanding achievement— in spite of the charge that there are too few teachers—that including privately remunerated teachers, of whom there are approximately 5,000 at the moment, as many as 40,000 Bantu teachers are being employed at present. On this occasion this afternoon it is unnecessary for me to indicate what progress has been made in Bantu education since the initial years. But you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, to say a few words on behalf of the Department. The success of Bantu education in South Africa could be described most aptly in one word, i.e. phenomenal. I believe that the hon. member for Kensington cannot find any fault or differ with that either. These are simply incredible results which have been achieved under very difficult and trying circumstances.

As regards the question of the financing of Bantu education, the question of too little money, which was once again raised here this afternoon, I should like to go into this in a little more detail. We are adhering to the Government’s policy that the Bantu population should make a considerable contribution to their own education. It is necessary for us to adhere to that policy. An amount of R26 million is at present derived from the original sources, whereas this year’s Estimates amount to approximately R40 million. The Government is therefore very realistic and has up to now supplemented the deficit by way of interest-free advances. The hon. member for Kensington is quite correct. Therefore I might as well deal with that matter now. He is quite correct in saying that there is an adverse balance of R20 million at present. The exact amount is R20,010,000 That is the present total deficit in the Bantu Account as anticipated on 31st March, 1970. I do not wish to offer any comment as to how these interest-free advances will be redeemed later on. This is a position which we may review as circumstances require. But I want to make it very clear this afternoon that we are aware of this position. We are aware of these tax circumstances which are being created by the Bill which was read a second time this afternoon. We must see first of all what amounts that tax is going to yield. We cannot foresee that with any degree of certainty. We assembled all the facts and were in fact aware of this debit balance. I may tell you now. Sir, that the Government is already paying attention to a method of dealing with this financial position in regard to Bantu education. We shall be ready for the financial year starting in March, 1970, to come forward with the answers to that question. At this stage I do not wish to say any more about that. We shall try to do so in such a manner that Bantu Education, which is a life-work to this Department, will only benefit by it. I should like to refer hon. members to the introduction to the 1966 annual report of the Department of Bantu Education, in which the position is succinctly and neatly stated, as follows—

Hon. members may read further for themselves. I do not have the time to go into that any further. It is a pity, really. This matter is regarded as a major task, and that is why we shall see to it that Bantu education will not suffer as a result of lacking the necessary funds. I hope that I have now given the hon. member a conclusive reply to that question. I should not like to say more, nor would it be fitting for me to do so. I think the assurance I have given the hon. member is sufficient for giving him the necessary satisfaction on that point..

You did not answer me but you promised to do better.

No, but I did answer. I am trying to be very fair now. But then hon. members should not continuously use the argument ad hominem against me all afternoon. That is the weakest argument imaginable. I repeat that if hon. members continue to use the argument ad hominem against me, they must appreciate that I assume they are doing so because of a lack of argument. I am always prepared to respond to that. I take pleasure in doing so. However, hon. members are now being very unreasonable. I am trying to make something different out of this Bantu education debate. I repeat that I have furnished the hon. member with a full reply on this question of finances, except on the question of the salaries of white teachers, in respect of which an amount of R3,750,000 appears, by way of a footnote, on page 2 of the Estimates. In this regard I just want to say that at this stage the amount is not reflected in the Estimates. However, the Treasury is definitely aware of this amount. It is, however, not yet reflected as revenue. Negotiations are being conducted with the Treasury at the moment, and I can now say that this amount will have to be deducted from the adverse balance of R20 million, since it will not be regarded as an interest-free loan. It is regarded as an additional source of revenue for Bantu Education. I wonder whether the hon. member for Kensington will now admit that I have given him a full reply. In other words, the amount is and will be regarded as a source of revenue for the Bantu Revenue Account. It will not be treated as an interest-free loan. That ought to be very clear.

The hon. member also wanted to know from me why there had to be separate Estimates in respect of Bantu Education. The answer is very simple and very clear. Bantu Education is a tremendously big department, with a tremendously big establishment. That is the most important reason. This is being done because of its very extensive service which has to be rendered to a population of almost 14 million in the Republic of South Africa. That is why it is being regarded as a separate matter. It is because of the service rendered by this Department and the extensive scope of its work. The hon. member also asked me, still in regard to finances, whether we were considering the introduction of “a revision of the method of financing the Bantu Account”. I have already replied to that. However, it seemed as though the hon. member was not completely satisfied. We do not say that we are thinking of introducing a “revision of the method”, but what I do say is that we shall, in the light of all the circumstances we are taking into account, find a method, with which we shall come forward next year, whereby it will be possible for us to comply properly with the needs of Bantu education.

There are a few more questions which the hon. member for Kensington put in regard to double sessions, etc. I shall reply to them presently, but I want to reply first to the question put by the hon. member for Koedoespoort. His first question was in regard to annual reports. He wanted to know whether they could not be published a little earlier. We should very much like these reports to be published earlier, but the difficulty is that, because of the very extensive statistics which have to be collected, this is not such an easy task. However, with due regard to the problems, the department undertakes to have these reports published as soon as possible. With reference to what the hon. member for Koedoespoort said in regard to key syllabuses, it is a great pleasure to me this afternoon to say that these new syllabuses, based on the accepted key curricula, have been prepared and were introduced at the beginning of 1969 already. In respect of most of the curricula suitable text books, supplied by leading firms of publishers, are available at the moment. With your permission, sir, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express my appreciation and that of my Department to these publishers for the great and valuable assistance they have rendered in this regard. Those curricula were therefore introduced at the beginning of 1969 already.

In regard to the new teacher training courses, which the hon. member mentioned, I may also say that one course in primary education and a course for junior secondary teaching have already been introduced at four special schools. Secondary school teachers are, of course, being trained at our Bantu universities. They receive the necessary training there. As I have already said, approximately 2,300 teachers are being trained every year. We hope that by 1972 it will be possible to increase that figure to 3,000 per year.

The hon. member for Houghton also asked a few questions. The first statement she made, was that too much attention was being paid to primary schools and too little attention to secondary schools. I want to say at once that in a matter such as education, it would never be correct to accept that enough was being done in regard to any aspect of education, since it is always possible to do more and since it is such an important matter. Therefore I do not wish to say that enough is being done in regard to secondary education. However, I want to point out to the hon. member that she was not quite correct in her premise. In the 1966 annual report of the Department of Bantu Education, it is being said on page 1: “For the continued development of the Bantu homelands more than literacy is required. The shift of emphasis is now in the direction of secondary, trade, technical and university training.” This is followed by a more detailed discussion of this matter in the report. I have already said that secondary education is not only being provided in the Bantu homelands, but also in our white areas, although it is in fact our policy to place the emphasis on the homelands. We are working according to a fixed formula. According to this formula there has to be one school for every 3.200 families. We think that this is an equitable formula. However, we find that owing to the large number of illegitimate children certain problems are cropping up now, but we are making the necessary provision for straightening out that position. I therefore want to content myself by saying that we realize that secondary education for the Bantu is of very great and very cardinal importance. I myself realize this, too. I would not like to see attention being paid mainly to primary education with the result that secondary education will not receive the necessary attention, but I can most definitely tell her, as I have also quoted from this report, that the department is to an increasing extent devoting much more attention to secondary Bantu education in South Africa, and we shall continue to do so, realizing the necessity for this to be done.

The hon. members also raised the question of bursaries for pupils in the homelands, for whom it should be possible to receive secondary instruction there. She wanted to know whether more bursaries could not be made available. I want to tell her that at present bursaries are available to promising matric pupils only. We shall, with the means at our disposal, try to make more bursaries available we realize that this is essential. We realize that it is important. We shall see whether we can do something about it. In this regard I cannot say any more this afternoon than I have already said.

In regard to the pass figure which the hon. member for Houghton mentioned, I want to say that it is quite true that the pass figure varies from year to year. This is the way it is everywhere, but the pass figure of the Bantu at our schools is not such that it causes our Department concern. The Department is satisfied that, having regard to all factors, the standard is high. As far as Dr. McConky is concerned, it is to be doubted whether he really visited these places and made a proper study of the curricula and the examination requirements. Our opinion is that Dr. McConky conjured somewhat with the figures. Therefore we cannot accept his figures. [Interjections.] I can assure the hon. member for Houghton that my per capita is very, very correct. It is very, very correct. That I can assure the hon. member. It is just as correct as is my de jure!

Your de facto as well.

Yes, my de facto as well. I may just say that I took Latin at school for four years. I also took Greek II. Therefore, if they think I do not know what de jure or de facto means, hon. members are really underestimating me. But now they want to fight the Bantu Administration Vote over again. It seems to me that they are very fond of a little skirmishing and fighting. Let us now come back to these other serious matters. It seems to me that the Opposition are not very interested, because they want to make fun when we are discussing important matters. I want to point out that the Bantu schools write two examinations. They write the National examinations of the Department of Higher Education as well as the Joint Matriculation Board examinations. The Joint Matriculation Board examinations bring the results down. That is a generally known fact. It is also a known fact that the Joint Matriculation Board pass figures are also lower amongst the Whites, because of the very high standards which are required. These very same standards are also being required from the Bantu. In the light of the facts I have now mentioned, which are facts, the average of 56 per cent is a good one. I may just add that our department is of the opinion—and I think this is quite correct— that the average would be higher if the department were to take down its own examinations in this regard. That is what we think. I think I have now replied fully to those questions.

The hon. member for Houghton also spoke about the night school story, which, of course, is also very important in its own right. For her information as well as that of other members of this House I want to mention briefly that the following night schools and continuation classes are situated in the Bantu area of the Cape Peninsula: In Guguleto in March, 1969, 94 persons had enrolled at the night schools for primary classes, and there were 7 teachers; in Langa in March, 1969, 84 persons had enrolled and there were 9 teachers; at Nyanga in March, 1969, 73 persons had enrolled and there were 7 teachers. That is the position in regard to night schools for primary education. Then there are continuation classes as well. In the secondary education section in Langa there were 151 enrolments and 10 teachers in May, 1969. I want to point out that this continuation class only started functioning on 15th April, 1969. In reply to a question asked in the House of Assembly on 21st February, 1969, it was stated that this continuation class had not yet commenced because the school board had not displayed the necessary determination to provide the necessary facilities, and especially because there were not enough teachers. But since then we in the department have, to use a colloquial phrase, got a move on, and at present, i.e. in May, 1969, there are 151 enrolments and 10 teachers. Therefore this is quite a fine achievement.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question?

The hon. member can do so in a moment. If I could only finish talking, it might not be necessary for the hon. member to ask a question in regard to this matter. The closing down of night schools and continuation classes in the White area has an undertone which is very significant, and the hon. member must appreciate that. I presume that that is the question the hon. member wants to ask, and that is why I say that she can ask the question in a moment if I have not answered it. At the end of 1967 the night schools and continuation classes in the white area of Cape Town and elsewhere were closed down in view of the fact that the group permits had expired. The policy is that schools and classes of this type are to be placed under the control of Bantu school boards in Bantu residential areas and homelands. However, favourable consideration is given to night schools and continuation classes for those bona fide Bantu employees who are over the age of 16 years and who are associated with mines or factories owned by Whites. Now, if I had to go into this in detail, it would be a long story, but I should like to finish and for that reason I shall leave it at that. However, I want to point out that White teachers may not be employed by Bantu school boards, as laid down in terms of Regulation 75 of Government Notice No. 26 of 5th January, 1962. Therefore, it is very clear in this regard that ….

It has been laid down by your predecessor.

Yes, but that is the very aspect I want to leave out, because if I were to raise it, hon. members on that side of the House would attack me again and then it would not be long before we would once again be involved in a good fight. Therefore, I shall now leave that aspect out of this. It is very clear that the answer is that Whites are not allowed there, for the reason that they cannot be in the service of the school board. The policy is that it has to be provided by the school board ….

[Inaudible.]

That is an extremely good reply which the hon. member has now given there. That is why they do in fact have a night school there for 151 enrolled Bantu. Those numbers can be increased a great deal, because they are in respect of May, 1969, and we have only just opened those schools. There are, as I have already said, 10 teachers.

Are they the same teachers who are doing double sessions in the day?

Yes, but all of us are working very hard. Now I want to return again to the hon. member for Kensington, since I only have one minute left. In regard to the double sessions I just want to point out that this really is an emergency measure which was taken to cope with this population explosion and the problems to which it has given rise. Our experience is that this does not have the effect of lowering standards. On the contrary, by limiting the school day to 3 hours and 35 minutes, the Department is moving closer to modern practice as contained in the principles that the period for which young children are capable of learning and paying attention is a relatively short one, and that for that reason their school-hours ought to be limited. I have the information here, and I am in a position to furnish the particulars of the Bantu schools as compared to the white schools. This information actually substantiates the fact I am now giving to the hon. member for Kensington, i.e. that there is no lowering of standards, for these time factors are very thoroughly taken into account. I repeat that we do not say that this is the most ideal state of affairs, but under the circumstances it is an ideal solution to a very thorny and difficult problem. I think nobody on that side of the House would be able to come forward with a better solution to this problem. I want to add that the introduction and implementation of double sessions may be regarded as one of the most significant measures for realizing our Department’s ideal of primary education for everybody and stamping out illiteracy. While I am dealing with this question, I want to say that I should very much have liked to give the hon. member a more detailed reply on the question of double sessions, but for the moment I have to leave it at that.

In regard to the question of illiteracy amongst the Bantu, I must say that we in South Africa are doing excellent work in our attempt at stamping out illiteracy amongst the Bantu. This is a great achievement. I should have liked to give the hon. member a more detailed reply to the question of provisional education and the privately remunerated teachers, but it is only possible for me to refer to it very briefly. I must say that the creation of provisional posts was only a temporary measure which was introduced in order to accommodate some school boards. The Department has already decided to subsidize these costs in full as soon as possible, subsequent to which they will disappear from the scene. I am now replying to the hon. member in terms which will please him a great deal. Of the original 500 posts which existed in 1967, 430 are left at the moment, and these are steadily being decreased. The amount usually made available in respect of the extension of teaching posts, is, as he himself would have seen, considerably larger for the financial year 1969-’70, i.e. R1,700,000, whereas it was only R800,000 the previous year. It is also the intention of the Department to apply a considerable sum of this R1,700,000 for the purpose of effecting a decrease in the number of privately remunerated teachers.

In order to give the hon. member for Kensington a chance to reply, I shall conclude with what I have said up to now.

Mr. Chairman, when we discuss finance, we do not say that something is not the best under the circumstances. We are not discussing that, but what we do say is that the circumstances are wrong, especially the financial circumstances. The department is not giving its own staff the chance, and how can they make bricks without straw? If we do not give them financial support, they cannot run a good department. But I understand, and I should like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for giving me the assurance, that an effort will be made to improve the finances.

I come to this question of secondary schools which has been raised. Why should parents have to send their children away to a secondary school? They cannot afford that. Why should they be told to send their children away to the homeland for their secondary education? It is quite unsound to take these Bantu children from their parents in the cities and send them away somewhere where they have to pay for it, and pay heavily for it. It is quite unsound to do that. The old rule in education is “Bring the school to the child”, but that is not being done here. I am speaking about the parents being too poor to pay.

I now come to the question of overcrowding in schools. The hon. members will have to excuse me, but I should like to be a schoolmaster for a minute or two. What does one do in introducing a system of education where there is overcrowding and where the teacher is not well-qualified? How have they handled it in other countries when they were faced with the same difficulty? If there are 50 to 60 children in a class and the teacher is not well qualified, then only one answer remains and that is that he must have a supply of books. In the early days of English education— I am now speaking of over a hundred years ago—they introduced the monitor system where the senior children of the school went down to the lower classes and with the book they heard the smaller children read. There is no other method of doing it. We cannot compare the system in our white schools with that of the black schools, and therefore books must be available for them. Books should be supplied liberally. Last year the hon. the Deputy Minister of the time, addressed the House on this subject and said that the amount made available for books had increased by R220,000. The hon. Deputy Minister at that time said: “At a later stage I shall deal with the question of bursaries …” When I asked him the question, “Is this amount of R220,000 for the 2 million children?”, he answered “Yes”. I told him that that was about an average of 10 cents per child. The hon. the Deputy Minister answered: “I have not worked it out yet, but I am quite satisfied with the progress which is being made.” If you spend 10 cents per child per annum …

Per capita, de jure …

… what possible chance is there of providing these children with books? I quite understand the problem that you cannot say to a piccanin, a small child, that he can take his book home, but an effort must be made. But not only that; we must also remember that they are not treated in the same way as we treat white children. Members of the profession will know that we have had learned debates on whether the second language should be introduced when the child first goes to school. We compromised and said that it should be introduced as a spoken language but then there should be very little of it: perhaps 20 minutes or half an hour per day. What do we do with these children? We give them three languages in these overcrowded classrooms and the schools have to have double sessions. Now what hope have we, the teachers and the department, when they do not even have proper buildings? Now we are asking the parents to provide the buildings. Let us go a bit further. The hon. member for Houghton— I am sorry she is not here—emphasized secondary education. I would emphasize vocational education, but whether it is secondary education or vocational education, we come back to this problem, and it is the problem in every developing country similar to ours, namely what are these children going to do when they are educated? What are we going to do with them when they have learned a trade? Must they all go back to the home lands? We all know that is impossible and that they are not going to go back. When we send these young people to the university, should we not say to them that it would be better for them to take a course at a technical college? We cannot yet have engineers in the Transkei and the other homelands, as they are called, but we can tell them that they can be assistants to engineers. They are the men we need and therefore should go in for vocational education. We are doing too much for higher education at universities. We have first created three new universities. That is all very well but even if the number they turn out all become teachers, it would not make much difference. According to the report there is only about 2 per cent of the teachers who are qualified to teach in secondary schools. This is a problem the hon. the Deputy Minister has to give his time to. How are we going to find the staff for the primary schools and the secondary schools? The hon. the Deputy Minister says that 2,000 teachers are turned out per annum. I know that they do not have a very high qualification, but that does not matter, but there are 100,000 new pupils taken up in schools per annum. This then means that there are 50 children per teacher.

That is why we hope to increase the number to 3,000.

I know, but it is not going fast enough. Another point is that the department is sloughing off its responsibility. I have here a circular which was sent out to all local authorities on the 20th January, 1969. It reads as follows:

They are paying for their schools and paying for their books, but what do White children do? In 1967 the hon. the Minister of National Education introduced an Act on the national education policy. He quoted his ten commandments, and one of those commandments was that all education, both primary and secondary, shall be free and that all books and stationery shall be free. This did not only apply to White pupils, but also to Coloureds. What have these African children done that they should not have better treatment? Should we say that they do not deserve anything better? Surely they deserve more sympathetic treatment? [Time expired.]

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 32.—Justice, R16,990,000, S.W.A. Vote 16.—Justice, R530,000, Revenue Vote 33.—Prisons, R24,800,000, and S.W.A. Vote 17.—Prisons, R490,000, put.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.